The essential elements required under Section 353 IPC were not established, leading to the quashing of the FIR as an abuse of process of law.

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:

"i) Allow this petition and quash all proceedings in C.C.No.7912/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 353 , 419 and 504 of IPC on the file of the learned 41^st A.C.M.M., registered Bengaluru City Rly. Police Station, vide Annexures A, B and C;

ii) Issue any other order and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for both the respondents. Perused the material on record.

3. On perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 02.06.2022, suo-moto complaint was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 at 9.00 a.m., inter alia alleging that on 31.05.2022 at about 1:30 p.m., the petitioner is said to have committed offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. In pursuance of the said complaint which was registered in an FIR in Crime No.98/2022, the respondent - Police submitted a charge sheet, which is currently pending in C.C.No.7912/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 353 , 419 and 504 of IPC.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that including the FIR, complaint, charge sheet material statement of witnesses and document etc., and insofar as offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC is considered, that the petitioner was an Ex-employee of the Intelligence Bureau (Central Government) and consequently, the question of the petitioner being incriminated for offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

5. So also, insofar as the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is considered, in the absence of sufficient material in this regard, that including the FIR, complaint, charge sheet material statement of witnesses and document etc., the petitioner also cannot be said to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.

6. The scope and ambit of the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC has come up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Manik Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka and another , [(2015) 7 SCC 423] , has held as under:

"10. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police, the conviction under that Section could be maintainable. Before considering the materials on record, we may usefully refer to Section 353 IPC which 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."

A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is