The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of establishing the essential ingredients of criminal force and assault for the offense under S.353 IPC, and the necessity of a complaint in writing under S.195 (1) (a) Cr. P. C. for offenses punishable under S.186 IPC.

1. The two accused in C C. No. 180/ 79 now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Wadakkancherry, are the petitioners herein and they seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the entire proceedings in the said criminal complaint. Both the petitioners are sisters, the first petitioner is said to be aged 52 and the second petitioner 40. The case against them is that they, on April 9, 1979. obstructed witnesses 1 and 2 in the charge-sheet who are respectively the Taluk Surveyor and the Revenue Inspector, from entering the compound in which the petitioners are residing by closing their gate and thus prevented and obstructed the above officers from discharging their official duties. It is alleged that it was for surveying property comprised in Sy. No. 399 of Enkakad Village as per orders of the Tahsildar that these officers went there. On these allegations, a complaint was filed by the Taluk Surveyor before the Wadakkancherry Police Station, on the basis of which a case was registered against the petitioners under S.341, and 353 read with S.34 IPC. On competition of investigation, a charge-sheet under the above said sections was filed against the petitioners. When the petitioners appeared before Court, they denied having committed any offence and the case was subsequently posted for trial.

2. The charge-sheet filed against the petitioners and the subsequent criminal proceedings against them are sought to be quashed on more than one ground. The learned advocate appearing for them submitted that this is a clear case of abuse of process of court, as the charge-sheet, the first information statement and all the relevant records supplied to the petitioners and sought to be relied on by the prosecution do not disclose any offence punishable under S.353 IPC. The counsel also contended that this is an illustrious case where the prosecution deliberately wanted to evade the salutary provisions of S.195 (1) (a) Cr. P.C. by changing the label of the offence as one punishable under S.353 IPC.

3. It is not disputed before me that the petitioners are residing alone in a house in the compound which the Taluk Surveyor and the Revenue Inspector wanted to survey. The counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor took me through the first information statement, charge-sheet and all the relevant documents which the prosecution wants to rely on in support of its case against the petitioners. Admittedly there is no allegation or averment either in the first information statement or the statements recorded under S.161 Cr. P.C. or in the charge-sheet that the petitioners assaulted witness Nos. 1 and 2 or used any criminal force against them. It is also not disputed that the only overt act attributed to the petitioners is that they closed the gate of the compound thereby obstructing witness Nos. I and 2 from entering the property. But the learned Public Prosecutor relying on the definition of force in S.349 IPC. strongly contended that force need not be used against any person to attract S.353 IPC. but it is enough if force is used against any substance as contemplated under S.349 IPC. The argument advanced is that by closing the gate, witness Nos. 1 and 2 had to go back without entering the compound for surveying the property and therefore there was cessation of motion as contemplated under S.349 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor appears to have forgotten the fact that assault or use of criminal force to any person is an essential ingredient of an offence punishable under S.353 IPC. and that there is a clear distinction between 'force' defined under S.349 and 'criminal force' defined under S 350 IPC. We are here in this case only concerned with the ingredients of an offence punishable under S.353 IPC. Even the definition of 'force' under S 349 will not apply to the facts of this case. It was relying on the second part of the definition of 'force' under S.349 IPC.; namely, "if a person causes