To establish offences under Sections 341 and 353 IPC, allegations must meet strict legal standards of obstruction and use of force, which were absent in this case.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.3886/2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 332 , 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC .

2. Heard Sri. Girishkumar R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and on an incident that happens on 20.09.2011, a crime comes to be registered by the respondent No.1 on the score that the petitioner had blocked or stopped the respondent No.2/complainant, a Police Sub-Inspector, from moving anywhere, which would become an offence under Section 341 of the IPC . The complaint also states that the petitioner had blocked the complainant who is a public servant in discharge of his official duties by use of force, which would become an offence under Section 353 of the . On the said complaint, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.386/2011 for the aforesaid offences. The police conduct investigation and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner, which is now pending as C.C.No.3886/2016 before the concerned Court. The 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 none of the ingredients of Section 341 or 353 of the IPC , as the case would be, are met in the case at hand. He further submits that, for what has happened in the Court premises, in no way can the offences under or 353 of the be met, in the case at hand.

6. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents would submit that there is clear blocking by the petitioner-accused of movement of the Police Sub-Inspector, which has happened in the Court premises and therefore, no lenience should be shown and the petitioner should be directed to face trial and come out clean in a full blown trial.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsels and have perused the material available on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. An incident happening in the Court premises on 20.09.2011, leads the respondent No.2 - complainant to register a complaint. The complaint reads as follows:

9. The police, after conducting investigation, file the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17, reads as follows:

10. The issue now would be, when the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, whether it would amount to the alleged offences or otherwise. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC being the primary offences inter alia. and 353 of the , read as follows:

"341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.—Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

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."

11. For an offence to become punishable under Section 341 of the IPC , the ingredients as obtaining under Section 339 of the should be necessarily met. The complaint or the charge sheet so filed is not indicative of the fact that respond