Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 570 (KAR)

Yathish S/o Siddaiah v. State of Karnataka

2020-02-27

B.A.PATIL

body2020
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.24515/2015 pending on the file of VIII Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 353 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional SPP for respondent – State. Respondent No.2 though served with notice, she remained absent. 3. The gist of the complaint is that on 21.07.2015 at about 1.30 p.m., petitioner/accused had been to the office of the Deputy Secretary Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru for enquiry about his file and started abusing in filthy language to the complainant and he was trying to assault one Smt. Latha Kumari, who was working as a Deputy Secretary in the Department of Medical Education. Immediately, the office staff and other members were tried to cought hold him but accused was started abusing them also in filthy language and obstructed to discharge their official duties. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of the complaint lodged does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. It is his further submission that in order to constitute an offence under Section 353 of IPC, the person of the alleged offence, should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with an intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such a public servant. The said ingredients are not satisfied by the prosecution. In order to substantiate his said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manik Taneja and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 . It is his further submission that the coordinate bench in Crl.P. No.9366/2018 has taken up the similar view and quashed the proceedings. It is his further submission that several letters were pending with the Deputy Secretary for getting the salary and only with an intention to harass the petitioner/accused; the present complaint has been filed. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 5. It is his further submission that several letters were pending with the Deputy Secretary for getting the salary and only with an intention to harass the petitioner/accused; the present complaint has been filed. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned Additional SPP vehemently argued and submitted that a bare reading of the contents of the complaint indicates that the accused has tried to assault the complainant with force in that light, the provisions of Section 353 of IPC is attracted. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused has abused with filthy language and thereby obstructed the discharging the official duty. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused has not made out any good grounds to quash the proceedings. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records. 7. Section 353 of IPC reads as under: “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.” 8. On close reading of the said section the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of IPC are that the person of the alleged offence should have assaulted the public servant or used the criminal force with an intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. This proposition of law has also been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manik Taneja and Another (quoted supra) at paragraph No.12, it has been observed as under: “12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of “criminal intimidation”. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the mind of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of the appellants posting a comment on Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.” 9. By compound reading of the Section and the ratio laid down in the above decision, on perusal of the contents of the complaint it indicates that nowhere it has been specifically contended by the complainant that she has been assaulted by the accused and the first ingredient is missing in the complaint. Though the learned Additional SPP submitted that he has pushed the chair and tried to come and assault but the second ingredient under Section 353 of IPC, the petitioner/accused must use the criminal force with an intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By plain reading of the contents of the compliant, it indicates that the ingredients are not going to be satisfied. In that light, the complaint filed for the offences punishable under Section 353 of IPC and the investigation conducted thereon appears to be not fair and it is not in accordance with law. But insofar as the offence under Section 504 of IPC is concerned, the petitioner/accused has used filthy language and abused. In that light, the complaint filed for the offences punishable under Section 353 of IPC and the investigation conducted thereon appears to be not fair and it is not in accordance with law. But insofar as the offence under Section 504 of IPC is concerned, the petitioner/accused has used filthy language and abused. At that time, the officers who were present came and caught hold of him and at that time also, he was abused them with filthy language. In that light, there is some material as against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. 10. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is partly allowed and the proceedings initiated in C.C. No.24515/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 353 of IPC is hereby quashed and insofar as ingredients of Section 504 of IPC is concerned, the same has not been quashed and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law expeditiously.