IMPORTANT POINT
The essential elements of assault under Section 353 IPC must be clearly established; mere allegations without evidence do not suffice for prosecution.

ORDER :

V. Sujatha, J.

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quash of proceedings in C.C.No.1537 of 2018 on the file learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, for the offence under Section 353 read with 34 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution against the accused is as follows:

The accused is resident of Jampeta, Rajamahendravaram. They are the organizers of Godavari DSC Coaching Centre which is being run in the vacant land situated opposite to Siri Hospital at Rajamahendravaram. LW9-Surada Srinivas is working as Police Constable in Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajamahendravaram and his wife is preparing for DSC TET examination. For the purpose of coaching, he admitted his wife in the said coaching centre. While so, on 10.01.2018, his wife Mahalakshmi after completion of the classes at the Coaching centre returned home and informed that the organizers are not providing any facilities like drinking water, toilets, chairs etc., due to which, she experienced some sort of inconvenience. On that, the husband of Mahalakshmi i.e. LW9 approached the Director of said coaching centre and discussed about the necessary arrangements. But he did not respond properly. Upon which, he lodged a complaint to LW1-Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram about the improper maintenance of coaching centre and requested to take necessary action against the organizers. On the report of LW9, LW1 directed the concerned to inspect the coaching centre. Upon inspection it is found that there are no proper facilities provided and running the coaching centre with nearly 1800 students and it is found that the registers, particulars of the students, commercial tax, GST and permission from the concerned are also not maintained properly. On the inspection report given by the R.I., V.R.O. on 11.01.2018, when the staff of LW1 went to serve a notice to the Director-Rambabu, he refused to take notice, the faculty Harinadh provoked the students to agitate by surrounding LW1 and caused obstruction to his official duties. On causing obstruction to LW1 in discharging his legitimate duties as public servant and report given by him, the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Rajamahendravaram registered a case in Cr.No.12/2018 for the offences under Section 353, read with 34 IPC. LW11-Inspector of Police take up investigation and after recording the statements of LW1, visited the scene of offence, prepared of rough sketch and recording the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The same was numbered as C.C.No.1537 of 2018 on the file of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare reading of the charge sheet itself to show that the ingredients of Section 353 of IPC does not attract against the petitioner herein since the petitioner has neither criminally assaulted nor criminally forced to defer the LWs 2 to 4 in discharging their legitimate duties. In fact the complaint initially was made by one Surada Srinivas who is working as Police Constable in ACB Department alleging that when his wife went to the coaching center of accused No.1 it is found that the organizers not provided facilities like drinking water, toilets, chairs etc. On that, LW9-Surada Srinivas spoke with director who did not respond properly. Hence, he lodged a complaint to LW1-T.R.Rajeswararao, Tahsildar to take necessary action. Subsequently, LW1 instructed his staff i.e. LWs 2 to 4 to serve notice on accused No.1, who refused to take notice and it is mentioned that the faculty Harinadh provoked students and agitated by surrounding the LW1. Hence, due to some differences between LW9 and accused No.1, the present false case came to be registered against the accused. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner is su