The main legal point established is that the High Court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding if continuation would be an abuse of process of law.

C.V. BHADANG, J.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Shri Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 3. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code, for short), the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 163/2016, registered with Police Station, Porvorim for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short).

3. The brief facts are that Mr. Captain James Braganza, Captain of Ports/Head of the Department, River Navigation had lodged a complaint on 15.11.2016 to the Superintendent of Police, Porvorim, Goa, alleging that on 08.11.2016, when one Mr. Vinod Kubal, Department Inspector was deputed to Betim Jetty for controlling traffic flow, the petitioner made an attempt to park one of his vehicles at the Betim Ferry Ramp, for which the Department Inspector Mr. Kubal objected. This happened at about 5.45 p.m. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner started arguing with Mr. Vinod Kubal and threatened him of dire consequences. Except this, there are no allegations of any overt act attributable to the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, the aforesaid offence under Section 353 read with Section 506(ii) of IPC, has been registered and the investigation is stated to be in progress.

4. We have heard Shri De Sa, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused record.

5. Shri De Sa, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was dispute regarding shifting of the river cruise belonging to the petitioner, which was subject matter of challenge in W.P. No. 754/2016. It is submitted that this Court, by an order dated 24.08.2016, had continued the ad interim relief already operating in the said petition. It is, thus, submitted that there was ad interim relief operating so far as shifting of the river cruise is concerned. It is submitted that the petitioner only showed the copy of the order of this Court to the Department Inspector and neither there was any assault nor criminal force was used against the Department Inspector, Mr. Kubal. It is submitted that even on the face of it, no offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC is made out. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer (IO) has been unable to collect any evidence to show that the petitioner has indulged into any offence as alleged.

6. Shri Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions from the IO, states that except the complaint, the Investigating Agency has been unable to collect any evidence in respect of the allegations till date. He, therefore, submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders.

7. We have carefully considered the circumstances and the submissions made.

8. Section 351 of IPC, which defines assault, reads as under:

"351. Assault - Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.

Explanation - Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault."

9. Explanation appended to Section 351 of IPC would clearly show that use of mere words do not amount to assault although gestures accompanied by certain words can do so. In the present case, perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioner had taken one of the tourist vehicles on the Betim Ferry Ramp, which was objected to by Mr. Kubal and there were some arguments, which ensued between the petitioner and Mr. Kubal. Except this, there are no allegations of any overt act made aga