ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.57/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 353 and 504 of the IPC.

2. The complainant though served 2 years ago, remains unrepresented even today. In the light of the charge sheet being filed, the learned HCGP, Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, representing the State, and learned counsel, Sri. Vivekananda N., appearing for the petitioner, are heard.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is the accused, and respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioner, though now retired from service, at the relevant point in time was working as the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Hiriyur. Respondent No.2 was working as a Work Inspector in the same office. The petitioner is said to have registered a complaint before the Lokayukta against certain omissions and commissions allegedly committed by the complainant. After the registration of the said complaint by the petitioner against respondent No.2 comes the impugned complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable as afore-quoted. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint is registered against this petitioner as a counterblast to the complaint registered by the petitioner before the Lokayukta. He would further submit that none of the ingredients that are necessary to be proved for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353 or 504 of the IPC are met even to a semblance in the case at hand. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.

5. Learned HCGP would submit that the police after investigation have filed the charge sheet and in the light of the charge sheet being filed by the police, the petitioner has to come out clean in a full blown trial, as the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 341 or 353 of the IPC, as the case would be, are made out against the petitioner in the case at hand. He would thus seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The issue now lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353 and 504 of the IPC are met in the case at hand. To consider the said issue, the skeletal facts that could be gathered is that, the petitioner registers a complaint before the Lokayukta against the present complainant alleging certain misconduct against him. The complainant then springs into action. The petitioner files complaints against several officers of the Town Municipal Council, and also goes to the office of the complainant to enquire about what has happened to the complaint that he sought to register. It transpires that the complaint registered by the petitioner against several officers of the Town Municipal Council resulted in the matter being referred to the Lokayukta on 25.08.2022 and a departmental enquiry by the Deputy Registrar of Enquiries-5 is taken up by the Lokayukta. When things stood thus, the present complaint springs for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner that he has wrongfully restrained a public servant and has stopped the public servant from discharge of his official duties. Therefore, the offences under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC have sprung.

8. I deem it appropriate to notice