ORDER:

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused, seeking quashment of case against him in Crime No.42 of 2020 on the file of Town Police Station, Tadepalligudem, registered for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code2.

2. Notice was served on Respondent No.2, but none appeared.

3. Heard Sri K.Satyanandam, learned counsel representing Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to file the petition are;

On 17.01.2020, at about 09.00 p.m., Respondent No.2 was attending his sentry duty. While he along with PC-2423 and HG 328 were on duty, at around

1 for short “the Code”

for short “IPC”

10.15 p.m. Sub-Inspector of Police handed over one Madisetty Pavan Balaji who is an accused in Crime No.41 of 2020 for safe custody, arrested under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. At about 11.30 p.m. the petitioner along with 20 persons came to the police station and when the constable tried to stop them, they have raised their voice questioning the police that why they have brought Pavan Balaji on their will and even after requesting over phone why they have not released him. Petitioner came inside the police station, sat on the bench, and obstructed his official duties. Basing on the complaint of Respondent No.2, a case has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.

5. The point involved is whether there are any reasonable grounds to quash the Crime herein or not?

6. It is beneficial to extract the offence under Section 353 of IPC:

“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 to 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. The language employed in the legal provision referred to supra clearly indicates that if anybody obstructs the public servant while discharging duties, the offence attracts.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this case is a created one, and nothing happened as alleged in the complaint and no offence is made out as per averments and prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

9. Contrasting the same, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations in the complaint prima facie attract the offence under Section 353 of IPC, as such the question of quashing the case against him does not arise.

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another3, wherein it was held that 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. In the instant case, perusal of the material available on record would show that, no force was used by the petitioner to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioner either assaulted Respondent No.2 or used criminal force to prevent him from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in my view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out. When the ingredients of offences alleged were not made out in the complaint, such criminal proceedings are liab