- Kerala High Court quashed a criminal proceeding against a 58-year-old man from Ernakulam and stated that Section 353 of IPC will not be attracted when there lies no allegation of assault or use of criminal force, or in cases when there is the absence of accusation that such act was done to deter public servant from discharge his official duties.
- The accused was booked under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code for‘assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty’. He was accused of entering Karimannoor Agriculture Office in the April of 2019 and abusing the staffs loudly and deterring the agriculture officer from discharging their duties.
- Justice Kauser Edappagath said that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner has used any force on the officer and the allegation placed was that, the accused after entering the officer’s room questioned her upon entering his property and asked who granted authority for her to do so.
- The court stated, "Apart from uttering these words, there was absolutely no use of force or even an attempt to use force. Apart from the vague allegation that the official time of the 2nd respondent [officer] was lost on account of the alleged acts of the petitioner, there is no specific allegation that the above-mentioned words were uttered by the petitioner with the intent to deter the 2nd respondent from discharging her duty", the court observed.
- The accused approached the High Court of Kerala for the proceedings pending against him before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodapuzha.
- Advocates C.P. Udhayabhanu and Navaneeth N Nath representing the petitioner contended that there was no offence under Section 353 IPC against the petitioner even though the allegations in the First Information Statement and materials from the investigation were believed.
- The Court observed that for Section 353 of IPC to apply, the fact that involvement of assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from carrying out his official duties and obligations while he was acting in the execution of his duty, or with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty or any attempt advancing towards the same should be established by the prosecution.
- Section 353 defines assault and the court under perusal of the section held that mere word shall not be deemed as assault and there must be apprehension of fear on the victim that he who makes any gesture or preparation is about to use some sort of a criminal force.
- Citing the case of Jaidas Vs State of Kerala and another, 2017, the court relied on the judgment, where to emphasise that entry into a public office to ventilate grievance and inquire about the status of an application does not amount to criminal trespass.
- Relying upon the Single Bench judgment delivered in Hariprasad and another Vs State of Kerala, where it was held that to attract Section 353 IPC, the prosecution is to prove the use of criminal force by the accused with an intent to cause injury, fear, or annoyance to a public servant.
- Reference was made to the case of Rilgin V George and another Vs State of Kerala and another, where it was held that one of the important requisites of Section 353 IPC is usage of assault or criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their duties.
- The court allowed the petition upon finding that Section 353 IPC was not attracted and further stated, "Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.543 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha are hereby quashed."
"Loved reading this piece by Arundhathi?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
