Mary Joseph, J.

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 295/2012 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The authority vested on this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sought to be exercised in this application to quash all proceedings initiated against them in C.C. No. 295/2012.

2. C.C. No. 295/2012 was originated from a charge sheet filed by the respondent after concluding the investigation initiated pursuant to a First Information Report registered as Crime No.229/2010 of Sreekaryam Police Station. The petitioners are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution was that on 19.04.2012 at 10.20 am, the petitioners with intention to obstruct CW1, who is the Commander of Thiruvananthapuram City Control Room Vehicle 14(CRV.14) restrained him from discharging his official duties, for directing them to remove a lorry parked on the road and engaged in unloading goods and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. In this Crl. M.C., the following grounds are raised by Sri. K.P. Sujesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 295/2012.

(i) The entire materials in the charge-sheet even if taken on its face value, would not suffice to attract the offences, with which he is charge-sheeted.

(ii) There must be assault or use of criminal force by the petitioners against a public servant for the offence under Section 353 to be invoked.

5. Now it is pertinent to have a look at the materials made available to identify the accusations raised against the petitioners. Copies of the F.I.R, the statements of the witnesses and the Final Report are appended with the application seeking the relief. The allegations borne out from the materials are extracted hereunder:-

"VERNACULAR MATTER"

6. The allegations would disclose that the petitioners restrained the officials from discharging their official duties when they directed them to remove the vehicle which was in the process of unloading goods from it after parking on the road, causing obstruction to other vehicles.

7. The question relevant for consideration in the context is whether restraint of an official would amount to an offence under Section 353 I.P.C. In this connection, it is apposite to extract Section 353 I.P.C. hereunder, which reads:-

"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 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."

8. Section 353 contemplates the pre-requirements as follows for the offence to be attracted:-

(i). Assault or criminal force must be there.

(ii). The person against whom assault or criminal force is alleged must be a public servant.

(iii). The public servant was in the lawful execution of his duty as a public servant.

(iv). The assault or criminal force must be exercised with intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty.

(v). The use of criminal force must be intentional.

(vi). The use of criminal force must be without the consent of the person.

(vii). By the use of criminal force, motion, change of motion or cessation of motion of the public servant must have been caused.

(viii). Use of criminal force must be with intention to cause or with knowledge that the same is likely to cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom it is used.

9. Therefore, it follows that the above mentioned ingredients are to be established for an offence und