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. 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