Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
K. Nageswara Rao, S/o. K. Krishnaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.7657 of 2013
Decided on : 21-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. T. Janardhan Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Soora Venkata Sainath, Mr.Anand Kumar Kochiri,

Point of Law: Merely a bald allegation that the petitioner objected to further action in purported implementation of the order of the High Court (supra) cannot be construed ipso facto to be an act of obstruction against officials in discharge of their official duties.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 353,155(2) and 351 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 482 – Quash of FIR - Complaint byTahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate, Urban addressed to Station House Officer that on a piece of land on which erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order in Writ Petition had directed for maintenance of status quo - When officials on knowing that some unknown persons had erected a six-feet statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on a one foot cement block in late hours for ensuring compliance of order, reached the site in question petitioner is said to have reached spot and objected to such action by officials - On the said allegation, the FIR came to be instituted - Whether allegations made in complaint, prima facie constitute an offence.
Finding of the Court:
Court finds that statements of all five officials do not even have a whisper of any gesture and/or the alleged specific overt acts of petitioner which may give an impression that petitioner was about to commit assault - Hence, admittedly, there is no specific instance of assault or use of criminal force on any public servant attributed to petitioner - Even otherwise, merely a bald allegation that petitioner objected to further action in purported implementation of order of High Court (supra) cannot be construed ipso facto to be an act of obstruction against officials in discharge of their official duties - Further, that petitioner alone could obstruct three officials in presence of a total of five officials is improbable - In the considered opinion of Court, this would fall within ambit of category - For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition deserves to be, and is, hereby allowed - FIR of Police Station is accordingly, quashed.
Result: Allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kumar Kochiri, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking quashing of the First Information Report bearing No.146 of 2013 at Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi Urban, Chittoor District instituted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to the “IPC”).

3. The FIR was instituted on the basis of a written report given by the 2nd respondent – the then Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate, Tirupathi Urban addressed to the Station House Officer, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati, under Roc.A/87/2008, dated 15.04.2013, in which it is alleged that on a piece of land on which the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 27.03.2008 in Writ Petition No.6472 of 2008, had directed for maintenance of status quo. When the officials on knowing that some unknown persons had erected a six-feet statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on a onefoot cement block in the late hours of 14.04.2013, for ensuring compliance of the order, reached the site in question on 15.04.2013 at about 05.45 p.m., the petitioner is said to have reached the spot and objected to such action by the officials. On the said allegation, the FIR came to be instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, on the date of incident, was working in a Carriage Repair Shop (CRS) as a Senior Section Engineer and this case has been lodged against the petitioner only because he had filed Writ Petition No.6472 of 2008, and having obtained an order of status quo, the petitioner could not have been either a violator of such order or have any reason to oppose the implementation of the order of the Court. Moreover, learned counsel submitted that the officials, both to gloss over their mistake and also intimidate him against filing any application alleging non implementation of the Court’s order, made the petitioner a scapegoat. It was contended that even otherwise, the Court may take notice of the fact that there were five officers present at the spot, out of which three were allegedly obstructed which is unbelievable for the reason that in the presence of five government officials, one person alone could not have resisted and obstructed them from discharging their official duty/ies. It was submitted that even the allegation of obstructing the officials in performing their duty is only a bald and vague statement, bereft of any overt act alleged with regard to the manner in which such obstruction was made by the petitioner.

5. On an earlier occasion, the Court had asked the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to assist the Court on the basis of the materials which may have emerged during investigation, especially the statements, if any, recorded of the witnesses.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that five officials had been examined and in their statements, the singular stand adopted by the officials is that the petitioner had obstructed them in discharging their official duty. However, no overt act or specific instance has been mentioned with regard to what had actually been done by the petitioner.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that a case for interference has been made out.

8. The charge sheet filed against the petitioner was for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC, which reads thus:

“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 don