Judgment 1. The petitioner, accused in Crime No.115 of 2009 which has been taken on file for investigation by the respondent police for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 175 IPC., seeks to quash the proceedings. 2. The petitioner was functioning as the President of Kottivakkam Panchayat situated within St.Thomas Mount Block, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. By virtue of the orders passed by the District Collector, the defacto complainant viz., Block Development Officer, took steps to take over the administration of the Panchayat and when he visited the Panchayat office at 11 A.M. on 02.03.2009, the petitioner was not present to hand over the administration as well as the documents. Though it was replied initially that the petitioner would come to the office by 4 P.M., he did not turn up till 5.30 P.M.; with the result, the defacto complainant could not take over the administration from the petitioner; therefore, the complaint was lodged on 04.03.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner questioned the order passed by the District Collector before this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. No.3485 of 2009 and an order of interim stay was granted on 04.03.2009 and such order was extended from time to time. He further submits that such order of stay was delivered to the defacto complainant on the same day at 12 Noon and a specific averment has also been made in the petition filed before this court. In such circumstances, the alleged offence under Section 175 Cr.P.C. is not made out. Insofar as the allegation for the offence under Section 353 IPC. is concerned, it is submitted that even the F.I.R. does not mention the presence of the petitioner, that being so, the said penal provision is also not attracted; under such circumstances, this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 4. Learned Government Advocate fairly concedes that, in view of the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition, the offences alleged against the petitioner are not made out. 5. I have carefully examined the materials available on record with reference to the allegations made and the arguments advanced. The F.I.R. was lodged before the respondent police at 8 pm. on 04.03.2009. 5. I have carefully examined the materials available on record with reference to the allegations made and the arguments advanced. The F.I.R. was lodged before the respondent police at 8 pm. on 04.03.2009. Only on the strength of the orders passed by the District Collector, the defacto complainant/BDO visited the Panchayat Office in order to take over the administration and, even before filing of the complaint on that day, the writ petition was filed and stay of operation of order of the District Collector was granted. It is claimed that the order passed by the High Court was intimated to the defacto complainant at 12 Noon itself. I am at a loss to understand as to why such information does not find a place in the FIR. At any rate, with reference to the allegation for the offence under Section 353 IPC. which is to the following effect, "353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.", it must be taken note of that, admittedly, the complaint was lodged by the BDO by 8 P.M. and that the petitioner never met the BDO during the course of his proceedings. Therefore, the allegation of assault or using criminal force so as to deter the public servant from discharging his duty seems to be baseless and rather a farce. Similarly, the ingredients of Section 175 IPC, which reads as follows:- "175. Therefore, the allegation of assault or using criminal force so as to deter the public servant from discharging his duty seems to be baseless and rather a farce. Similarly, the ingredients of Section 175 IPC, which reads as follows:- "175. Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or Electronic Record to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the document or Electronic Record is to be produced or delivered up to a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.", are not attracted at all in view of the order of stay passed by this Court in the Writ Petition. 6. In the above circumstances, since there is no valid material or ground to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 353 and 175 IPC, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner pertaining to Crime No.115 of 2009 on the file of the respondent police are quashed. 7. Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.