JUDGMENT : S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Application is filed by the Applicant praying therein to quash and set aside the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.29 of 2017, registered with Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule for the offence punishable under Section 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences gets attracted even upon reading the allegations in the First Information Report (for short "FIR") in its entirety. It is submitted that the offence is registered by the police officer stating therein that Applicant entered in the police station and prohibited the informant, who is police official, from discharging her duty as a public servant. It is submitted that one minor girl by name Miss. Momina went to the police station to file complaint against one Raju. It is submitted that Applicant went to the police station to intervene in the matter as per the say of father of said Raju but police officers did not allow him to do so. It is submitted that after registering the First Information by said Momina, the Applicant left the police station. The Applicant has not assaulted and or used any criminal force to deter public servant from discharging his/her duty. The allegations made against the Applicant in the First Information Report are false. The Applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence with ulterior motive. Therefore, he submits that the FIR may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State invites our attention to the contents of the FIR and submits that alleged offences are disclosed, which need further investigation. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. It would be apt to reproduce here the relevant portion of the allegations made against the Applicant in the First Information Report:- "xxx” . 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. It would be apt to reproduce here the relevant portion of the allegations made against the Applicant in the First Information Report:- "xxx” . Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR, it appears that the Applicant asked the informant not to register the complaint of said girl and asked that if the complaint of said girl is registered, he will file complaint against the informant to her superiors and also in the Court, and that he will give the news against the informant and others in local Dhule T.V. Channel. 6. If the allegations in the FIR are examined in the light of the provisions of Section 353 of the I.P. Code, none of the ingredients of the said Section gets attracted. To attract the provisions under Section 353 of the I.P. Code, there should be allegation that accused assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as a public servant. It is clear from the allegations in the First Information Report that no force was used by the Applicant. Perusal of the contents of the First Information Report reveals that the Applicant has neither assaulted the informant nor used criminal force to prevent the informant or any other police officer from discharging his/her official duty. In that view of the matter, upon reading the allegations in the FIR in its entirety, an ingredients of Section 353 of the I.P. Code are not attracted in the facts of the present case. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Manik Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka and another, 2015 A.I.R. (S.C.) (Supp) 671 after considering the facts in the said case, observed in Para12 as under: "12. A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, that the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out." 8. To attract the offence under Section 506 of the I.P. Code, essential ingredients are that the accused person should have committed the offence of criminal intimidation. Upon reading the allegations in the FIR, it is not alleged that the Applicant has committed the offence of criminal intimidation. In that view of the matter, upon reading the allegations in the FIR in its entirety, an ingredients of Section 506 of the I.P. Code are also not attracted. 9. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Application is allowed. The First Information Report bearing C.R. No.29 of 2017 registered with Azadnagar police station, Dhule for the offence punishable under Section 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. . Rule made absolute in above terms. The Criminal Application stands disposed of, accordingly.