The main legal point established is the requirement of assault or criminal force for the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and the necessity of a written complaint for the court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 186.

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.

1. The applicant has prayed for quashing of Criminal Proceeding bearing S.C.C. No. 614 of 2013 arising out of F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.4 of 2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raver, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the I.P.C.").

2. The case of respondent no.1 (i.e. the informant), in short, is that he being a bailiff attached to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Raver visited the land of the applicant situate at village Vivara (Kh), Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon for executing the decree subject matter of Execution Petition No. 34 of 2004. When he started to affix the boundary marks, after measuring the land, the applicant rushed to that spot, shouted at the respondent no.1 and did not allow him to execute the decree. Since the applicant obstructed respondent no.1 while executing the decree, respondent no.1 lodged report against the applicant in Police Station, Nimbhora for the above-mentioned offences. The investigation followed and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the applicant came to be charge-sheeted for the above-mentioned offences.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the contents of the F.I.R. are accepted as they are, the same do not constitute the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code since there is no mention that the applicant either assaulted or used criminal force against respondent No.1. Therefore, the applicant was not liable to be prosecuted for the said offence. He further submits that as far as the offence punishable under Section 186 of the I.P.C. is concerned, as per section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), the Court cannot take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the I.P.C. unless there is a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. He further submits that the alleged incident took place on 16.01.2013 while the F.I.R. has been lodged on 06.02.2013. This delay has not at all been explained. In the circumstances, he prays that the above-mentioned criminal proceeding may be quashed and set aside.

4. As against this, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent no.2/State submits that the applicant obstructed respondent no.1, who is a public servant, while he was discharging his duty as a bailiff by not allowing him to execute the decree. According to him, the respondent no.1 could not affix the boundary marks and deliver possession of the land to the decree holder as per the said decree. According to him, the contents of the F.I.R., prima facie, disclose the offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C. He, therefore, prays that the application may be rejected.

5. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code 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."

6. From the bare reading of Section 353 of the I.P.C., it will be clear that the assault or criminal force, as defined in sections 351 and 350 respectively of the I.P.C. is an essential ingredient to constitute the said offence. As per the Explanation given under Section 351 of the I.P.C., mere words do not amount to an assault. In the present case, it is alleged that the applicant shouted and therefore, respondent no.1 could not execute the decree. The