The court affirmed that allegations of obstruction and assault against a public servant constitute an offence under IPC, substantiating the necessity for trial to resolve factual disputes.

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1301 of 2020 registered at the Kannur Town Police Station for offences under Sections 143 , 147, 353 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 4(2)(a) and 5 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, 2020 now pending as C.C.No.1919 of 2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. The crime is registered on the allegation that, at 1 pm on 13.07.2020, the accused unlawfully assembled at the gate of the Kannur Town Police Station and after disobeying the direction of the Sub Inspector of Police to maintain social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 and the SoPs issued by the Government, forcefully obstructed the Sub Inspector and other policemen on duty from entering the police station and also assaulted the Sub Inspector. Thereafter, the accused trespassed into the Police Station, and caused nuisance.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, the offence under Section 353 of IPC is not made out. For attracting , there should either be criminal force or assault against the public servant. A vague statement by the Sub Inspector that he was obstructed from entering the police station and assaulted by the accused cannot be the basis for prosecuting the petitioners for the offence under . According to the counsel, at best, the allegation will only attract Section 186 of . If it is 186 of , then the court can take the cognisance only on the complaint of the public servant, as provided under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To buttress the argument, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court inBasir-ul-Huq and Others v State of West Bengal . [ AIR 1953 SC 293 ], Mahendra Kumar Sonker v State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2024) 8 SCC 244 ] and B.N.John v State of U.P. and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 7].

3. It is then submitted that the true facts are contrary to what is alleged and it was the petitioners who were actually assaulted by the policemen. The crime was registered anticipating action against the policemen based on the complaints filed by some of the petitioners before the Human Rights Commission and the Police Complaints Authority.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in his First Information Statement, the Sub Inspector of Police has narrated the incident clearly and has stated that he was assaulted after being obstructed from entering the police station. In such circumstances, the offence under Section 353 of IPC is attracted and the genuineness or otherwise of the statement has to be decided based on the evidence tendered during trial.

5. As submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, in his First Information Statement, the Sub Inspector has stated that on being directed to maintain social distance, the accused raised a hue and cry and forcefully obstructed him and the other policemen on duty from entering the police station, thereby preventing them from carrying out their official duty. The Sub Inspector has also stated that he was assaulted by the accused and after criminally trespassing into the police station, they created nuisance inside. Thus, the allegation of assault and obstruction from discharging official duty is specifically alleged in the First Information Statement itself.

6. Going by Section 353 of IPC , either assault or use of criminal force to a public servant in the execution of his duty is sufficient to attract the offence. True, inBasir-ul-Huq (supra), it is held that the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C cannot be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflages. Therein, the Apex Court has also observed that the test is whether the facts primarily and essentially disclose an offence for which complaint of the cou