The court emphasized that the essential ingredients for offences under Sections 341 and 353 IPC were not met, leading to quashing of proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No.25656/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 323, 332, 341, 353, 427 read with Section 149 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 09.06.2003, a crime comes to be registered by respondent No.1 on the score that several advocates, were involved in a scuffle with the police on the said date. The complaint states that the police were restrained from moving anywhere, which would become an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC . The complaint also states that these persons, had blocked the complainant and other police officers, who are public servants in discharge of their 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.240/2003 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner becomes embroiled in the said crime based on the statement made by one Mr. T. Rajan. The police conduct investigation and file the charge sheet against the petitioner implicating him as accused No.3, which is now pending in C.C. No.25656/2018 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 Sections 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.

5. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was involved in restraining the movement of the police officers, and was also involved in assaulting the police officers in the incident which occurred on the aforementioned date 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.

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

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. An incident happening in the Court premises on 09.06.2003 leads the respondent No.2 - complainant to register a complaint. The complaint reads as follows:

The police, after conducting investigation, file the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.7, reads as follows:

8. 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,