1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.778 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur. The offences alleged are under sections 448 and 353 of the IPC.

3. The de facto complainant was the Assistant Agricultural Director having her office at Puzhakkal. On 28.1.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., the petitioner, claiming himself to be a farmer entered her office and laid himself down on the floor of the office room. He behaved as if he was under the influence of alcohol. He used unpalatable words in the presence of her subordinate officers. According to the de facto complainant, she was deterred from performing her official duties as a public servant. Stating all these aspects, a complaint was submitted before the Sub Inspector of Police based on which Crime No.134 of 2015 of the Town West Police Station, Thrissur was registered. Later investigation was completed and final report was laid before Court. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 448 and section 353 of the IPC. The final report is sought to be quashed invoking the powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations raised, if taken as such and admitted as true, will not make out the offence alleged. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had applied for an electric connection for his pump house and when sanction was not granted, he had gone to the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture to inquire about the same. When he questioned the officers, they had behaved rudely towards him. When he protested a false complaint was got registered against him. According to the learned counsel, Section 448 of the IPC has no application as the act of the petitioner cannot amount to house trespass as the office of the Assistant Director is a public office meant for access for the common man. Learned counsel would further submit that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner had assaulted or used criminal force to any person let alone the Assistant Director of Agriculture. It is further submitted that the allegation that the petitioner behaved like a drunken person was belied by the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate which showed otherwise.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the basic allegations were made out and this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

6. I have gone through the materials on record. The allegation in the final report revolves around an incident which took place inside the office room of CW1, who at the relevant point of time was working as the Assistant Director of Agriculture. The petitioner, it appears was aggrieved by the delay in giving consent for the electric connection meant for the pump house of the petitioner. He is alleged to have entered the office room and laid himself on the floor. He is said to have showered abuses at CW1. However, the words used has not been stated anywhere. The court below did not take cognizance of the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC, though the said offence was also charged. Thereafter, despite requesting him to go away, the petitioner is alleged to have remained in the room.

7. Question is whether the offence under section 353 and 448 will be attracted in the said situation.

8. In order to attract section 353 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that there was assault or use of criminal force and such assault or use of criminal force was made on a public servant while he was acting in the execution of his duty or with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by him in the discharge of duty. In the case on hand, the prosecution has no case that the petitioner had used criminal force or had assaulted on CW1. In that view of the ma