JUDGMENT (Prayer:Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.338 of 2023 on the file of the 1st respondent Police Station and to quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner is concerned and pass such further or orders.) 1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No.338 of 2023 on the file of the 1st respondent. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief:- On 12/05/2023 at about 11.30 am, the petitioner along with others numbering about 26, gathered at Thinnappa Church Corner near RDO office, blocked the road and made protest against the police personnel, who prevented them in their protest. On the basis of the above said occurrence, a case in Crime No.338 of 2023 was registered for the offences under sections 143, 341, 353, 294(b), 506(i) r/w section 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act. 3. Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that none of the allegations mentioned in the FIR attract any of the ingredients of the offences alleged against him. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that because of the legal action that was taken by the petitioner over the willful disobedience of the order passed by this court in WP(MD)No.21040 of 2018 as a victimization, he was booked under the above said crime. 6. This court need not go into the factual aspect, whether it is an vindictive action on the part of the police in registering the above said case against the petitioner. 7. Reading of the FIR shows that the petitioner being the President of the Association, staged protest in front of the RDO office, opposing establishment or erection of the high tension electric posts. 8. No doubt that they made the above said demonstration or protest, as the case may be without permission from the competent authority, raising slogans against the establishment of the high tension cable. It is a democratic right of every citizen to raise voice against the Government over a particular issue. Such aright has been exercised by the petitioner along with others in a peaceful manner. It is a democratic right of every citizen to raise voice against the Government over a particular issue. Such aright has been exercised by the petitioner along with others in a peaceful manner. Further, it is seen that no damage has been caused to any private or public property. 9. For attracting the offence under section 143 IPC, the ingredients of section 141 IPC must be fulfilled. 10. Section 141 IPC reads as under:- "Section 141.Unlawful assembly.- An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly:, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is- First-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right: or Fifth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.-An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly." 11. When we apply the ingredients to the factual position of the case, it is seen that none of the ingredients mentioned in 141 IPC get attracted. They have simply made protest. It is a democratic right of every person to raise voice against the political or Government demanding legal action. Such a right has been exercised by the petitioner along with others. So, that cannot be construed as 'unlawful or illegal'. 12. So far the offence under section 353 IPC is concerned, it has been stated that the police people were prevented from discharging their official duty. 13. Section 353 IPC reads as follows:- “353. Such a right has been exercised by the petitioner along with others. So, that cannot be construed as 'unlawful or illegal'. 12. So far the offence under section 353 IPC is concerned, it has been stated that the police people were prevented from discharging their official duty. 13. Section 353 IPC reads as follows:- “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.” 14. 'Criminal force' is defined in 350 IPC, which read as under:- 350.Criminal force-Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that persons's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such fore he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used is said to use criminal force to that other. 15. 'Assault' is defined in section 351, which reads as under:- 351.Assault-Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is aid to commit an assault. Explanation-Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparation amounts to an assault. 16. When we read the ingredients of the offences under sections 350 and 351 IPC coupled with 353 IPC, there is no clear indication in the final report that criminal force or assault was made by the accused persons to prevent the public servants from discharging their official duty. 17. 16. When we read the ingredients of the offences under sections 350 and 351 IPC coupled with 353 IPC, there is no clear indication in the final report that criminal force or assault was made by the accused persons to prevent the public servants from discharging their official duty. 17. Reading of the final report shows that a police team entered into the place of occurrence and warned the accused to disburse, but they failed. That will not amount to use of criminal force or assault upon the public servants, preventing them from discharging their official duty. On the face of it, section 353 IPC is not made out. 18. Section 341 IPC reads as under:- "341.Punishment for wrongful restrain.-Whoever wrongfully restrains any person 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. 19. For attracting the offence under section 341 IPC, there must be material to show that some was restrained unlawfully. But there is no complaint by any of the public. 20. So far as the Criminal Law Amendment Act is concerned, the intention of the petitioner was not to cause any nuisance or preventing the officials from discharging their duty. So in the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence under section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act is not attracted. As mentioned above, their aim is not to prevent the public servants from discharging their official duty. On the face of it, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, is also not attracted. 21. Section 294(b) IPC reads as follows:- "294(b)sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both." 22. Now coming to the legal ground, the statement of law on this issue has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.S.Madhanagopal and another Vs. K.Lalitha (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844).. Let me extract the settlement of law for better appreciation. ".....the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences". This test has been uniformly followed in India. K.Lalitha (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844).. Let me extract the settlement of law for better appreciation. ".....the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences". This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D.Udeshi V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881 . In Samuel Roth V. U.S.A., 354 US 476(1957), Chief Justice Warren said that the test of 'obscenity' is the "substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires". Mr.Justice Harian observed that in order to be 'obscene' the matter must 'tend to sexually impure thoughts". I do not think that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. It may be that the words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think that the words are 'obscene' and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under S.294(b) IPC." 23. So when we apply the above said statement of law, I am of the considered view that not even the obscene words alleged to have been spoken by the petitioner has been stated by the de-facto complainant. But mere allegation that the petitioner used the abusive word does not satisfy to attract the offence under section 294(b)IPC. So when we read the final report, in the context of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of N.S.Madhanagopal and another Vs. K.Lalitha (2002 LiveLaw (SC) 844), it is seen that the ingredients of section 294(b) IPC are not attracted. 24. For attracting the offence under section 506(1) IPC, the ingredients of section 503 IPC must be fulfilled. 25. Section 503 IPC reads as follows:- “503.Criminal intimidation.— Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.” 26. When we draw the allegation mentioned in the final report to the ingredients, it is also seen that it is not attracted. When we draw the allegation mentioned in the final report to the ingredients, it is also seen that it is not attracted. A simple abusive word alleged to have been exaggerated as if they were criminally intimidated and abused in filthy language. 27. For all the reasons stated above, this court is of considered view that the entire prosecution is bad in law and accordingly, this petition is liable to be allowed. 28. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.338 of 2023 on the file of the 1st respondent is hereby quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.