Essential ingredients of assault under Section 353 IPC must be proven, including the use of criminal force against a public servant, which was not demonstrated in this case.

ORDER :

K. SUJANA, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/accused, to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2033 of 2021 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial, for the offences punishable under Section 353 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.10.2021 at about 12.15 p.m., respondent No.2 as a part of his duties,stopped one Mahindra Verito Car bearing No.AP 15 AY 2244 being driven by the petitioner. When the said vehicle was checked, it is found that eight (08) challans were pending in respect of the said vehicle. As such, respondent No.2 asked the petitioner to pay the pending challans, however, the petitioner questioned the authority of respondent No.2 in filthy language. Hence, based on the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.462 of 2021 before the Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial District and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.2033 of 2021 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial.

3. Heard Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that the petitioner is a Medical Officer at Government Civil Dispensary, Dharoor camp, Jagtial District. He secondly submitted that at the time of incident, the petitioner was holding only Rs.2,000/-, as such, he requested respondent No.2 that he would pay the remaining amount after attending the hospital. He lastly submitted that the petitioner paid the due challan amounts on the same day by 12:56 p.m., at nearby Mee-seva center. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that instead of paying challan amounts, the petitioner questioned the authority of respondent No.2 in filthy language, and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is relevant to extract Section 353 of IPC which 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.”

7. A plain reading of the above provision of law would abundantly make it clear that in the instant case, the Police has to prove that the petitioner used criminal force against the public servant in execution of his duty.

8. In Manik Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka and Another , 2015 AIR SCW 1948, the Apex Court at paragraph No.12 has observed as follows:

“12. A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either as