JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Considering the controversy involved in the matter, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is filed to quash the FIR being II-C.R. No. 183 of 2017 registered with Vidhyanagar Police Station, District: Anand. 3. Heard, the learned senior counsel Mr. I. H. Syed, assisted by Mr. C. B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. J. Panchal, learned counsel for the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the respondent – State. 4. The second respondent is the Vice Chancellor of the Sardar Patel University. He lodged a report with the police stating that on 22.12.2017 at 4:30 p.m. that the petitioners herein, who are four accused in the said case, came to his office and insisted him to disclose the names of the members of the Interview Board. When he stated that he would furnish the details later on that the petitioners got enraged and entered into verbal altercation with the second respondent. Thereafter, they left the office of the second respondent. It is further stated that when the second respondent was going away from his office to his house on that day after office hours, that the petitioners came in a car when he was on his way to the house and they tried to physically assault him. The people, who gathered there, came to his rescue. It is stated that after seeing the people who gathered, that the petitioners left the place and went away. 4.1 The said report was initially registered as a case in the above crime for the offences punishable under Section 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the petitioners. 4.2 Again after four days from the date of the alleged offence, the Investigating Officer has filed a report before the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand for the addition of Sections 394, 353 and 452 of the IPC. 5. After the original FIR was lodged, the petitioners have filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quash of the said FIR. 5. After the original FIR was lodged, the petitioners have filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quash of the said FIR. After the said report was filed for addition of the aforesaid sections of law, they sought amendment seeking quash of the said Addition Report also filed to add Sections 394, 353 and 452 IPC. This Court, by way interim order, has ordered stay of further proceedings in relation to the said Addition Report to add Sections 394, 353 and 452 of the IPC. 5.1 There was no stay granted in relation to the original FIR that was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. Therefore, the investigation went on and eventually, after completion of investigation, the police have filed Charge-sheet for the said offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the said offences and charges were also framed for the said offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. The trial also commenced in the said case and it is stated that the trial is at the fag end of it. 5.2 As regards the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC are concerned, as the Charge-sheet was already filed and the trial Court has also framed charges and trial of the said case already commenced and as it is at the fag end of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the said case in relation to the said offences is to be decided by the trial Court. No case is made out so far as the said offences are concerned for quash of the FIR. More particularly, as noticed above, as trial has already commenced after framing of charges, the law has to take its own course insofar as the said offences are concerned. 6. As regards the Addition Report that is filed for addition of Sections 394, 353 and 452 of IPC is concerned, the said sections of law are not initially included when the FIR was registered on the basis of the report, which was lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein. They are sought to be included subsequently by the IO. They are sought to be included subsequently by the IO. But, even as can be seen from the contents and allegations of the said Addition Report, this Court is of the prima facie view that no case is made out for the said offences punishable under Section 394, 353 and 452 of IPC. Section 394 IPC deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in committing offence of robbery. If any person while committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt to any person in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, it is said that the offence punishable under Section 394 is made out. Therefore, the predominant requirement that is essential to be established to constitute an offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC is causing or attempting to cause hurt by a person while committing or attempting to commit an offence of robbery. Robbery is defined under Section 390 of IPC. When the allegation in the said Addition Report is examined in light of the definition of robbery, there is nothing to indicate even from the Addition Report that perpetrating any offence of robbery or any attempt to commit the said offence of robbery is by the petitioners is made out. Therefore, when the very offence of robbery or attempt to commit offence of robbery is not made out, causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit the said offence of robbery constituting the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC is certainly not made out from the facts of the case. 6.1 As regards the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC is concerned, it deals with punishment for for house-trespass after preparation to cause hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. Section 442 defines “House-trespass”. Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “Housetrespass”. Admittedly, as per the contents of the original FIR or even as per the contents of the Addition Report that is filed, there is no allegation that the petitioners have trespassed into any building, tent or vessel which is used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place of worship or as a place for custody of the property. Mere trespassing into the building by itself will not constitute an offence of House-trespass and it has to be shown that the said building is being used a human dwelling or used as a place of worship or as a place for custody of the property. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC is also not made out from the facts of the case. 6.2 Apropos the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it deals with punishment for assault or criminal force used to deter a public servant from discharging his duty. 6.3 When a person assaults or uses criminal force against any person who is 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, it is said that offence punishable under Section 353 is made out. 6.4 Although, the second respondent – de facto complainant who was a Vice Chancellor at the time of the alleged offence, can be considered as a public servant at the relevant time, the allegations set out in the Addition Report show that no such assault or criminal force was used against him while he was on duty or while he was discharging his public duty. The alleged assault or criminal force according to the prosecution version took place after the office hours when the second respondent was going to his house from his office and near the premises of the University. So, he was not on duty at the relevant time. So, it cannot be said that any assault or criminal force was used against him when he was on duty to deter him or prevent him from discharging his duty as such public servant. Therefore, strictly speaking, even Section 353 IPC has no application to the present facts of the case and no case is made out for the said offence from the facts of the case. 6.5 However, learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently contended that even if the second respondent was not found to be on duty and discharging his functions as public servant at that time, as it is stated in the report that a criminal force was used against him and an assault was made against him that at least a case under Section 352 IPC is made out. He contends that an assault or criminal force against a person clearly constitutes an offence punishable under Section 352 IPC and that the petitioners are liable for the said offence. 6.6 Section 352 IPC deals with assault or criminal force made on any person and Section 353 deals with assault or criminal force used against the public servant in discharge of his duty. The only distinction between Sections 352 and 353 is that if the assault is made against a public servant then the offence under Section 353 is constituted and if assault or criminal force is made against any other person not being a public servant then the offence under Section 352 is constituted. 6.7 Therefore, even if the facts of the case constitute any offence punishable under Section 352 IPC, since the trial has already commenced, it is for the prosecution to take steps to frame an appropriate charge to that effect if it is of the view that a case under Section 352 is made out from the facts of the case as alleged before this Court. 6.8 Section 216 CrPC empowers the Magistrate to add or alter charge at any time before signing the judgment. Therefore, the prosecution is at liberty to take steps for addition of appropriate charge on the basis of the material that is now placed before the Court and from the evidence that is adduced before the trial Court to that effect. 6.9 So, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, as no case is made out for any of the offences punishable under Sections 394, 353 and 452 of the IPC, as per the Addition Report that is filed, the said Addition Report is liable to be quashed. 7. Resultantly, the application succeeds and is allowed, in part. The Addition Report that is filed for the offences punishable under Section 394, 353 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is quashed. The original FIR for the offences punishable under Section 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC is not liable to be quashed as the trial already commenced in the said case after framing of charges. As regards the offence punishable under Section 352 IPC is concerned, it is for the prosecution to take steps for framing of additional charge, if required, in the trial Court. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.