The determination of intent in obstructing police duties must be evaluated through trial evidence; compounding options exist for the accused.

ORDER The petitioner, a native of Telangana State, was arrayed as the accused in Crime No.221 of 2025 registered at the Pampa Police Station on the allegation that, at around 12:30 AM on 23.12. 2024 , on being questioned about the petitioner parking his vehicle obstructing the movement of the other vehicles from the parking ground to the public road, the petitioner got out of the vehicle and pushed the 2^nd respondent, a Police Officer on duty, causing Officer’s KAP insignia and nameplate to fall off. After investigation, the Police filed final report for offences under Section 285 of BNS and Section 117 (e) of the Kerala Police Act .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the essential ingredient for attracting the offence under Section 117 (e) of the Kerala Police Act is the accused’s manifest intention to prevent the Police Officer from discharging his duties by threatening, obstructing, or assaulting the Officer. The allegation of pushing the 2nd respondent, even if taken to be true, cannot be termed as an act done with manifest intention of threatening, obstructing or assaulting the Officer. In support of the argument that, in the absence of manifest intention, the offence under (e) will not be attracted, reliance is placed on the order of this Court in Manjusha v. State of Kerala and Another ( 2024 : KER : 38812 ). It is further submitted that the petitioner being a person from another State was not able to understand what the Police Officer was telling him. As regards the offence under Section 285 of BNS, the learned counsel submitted that, since the vehicle was parked in a parking ground, the allegation of having parked in a manner obstructing the public way cannot be countenanced.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the facts in Manjusha (supra) are entirely different and as far as the case at hand is concerned, the specific allegation is that, after alighting from his vehicle, the petitioner pushed the 2^nd respondent. This clearly reveals the petitioner’s manifest intention to assault and prevent the Officer from discharging his official duties. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the offence under Section 117 (e) is compoundable as per Section 126 of the Kerala Police Act and the punishment for the offence under Section 285 of BNS is only fine.

4. In spite of the appealing arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it not possible to hold that the offence under Section 117 (e) of the Kerala Police Act is not attracted, since the question whether the petitioner had the manifest intention to prevent the Officer from discharging his duties has to be decided based on the evidence adduced during trial. Moreover, as the offence being compoundable under Section 126 of the , if the petitioner opts for compounding, a lenient view can be taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate, considering the circumstances under which the incident had occurred and the fact that the petitioner is a devotee from another State. If the petitioner pleads guilty for the offence under Section 285 of IPC, a lenient view can be taken in fixing the quantum of fine also.

The Crl.M.C is hence closed leaving open the petitioner's right to seek compounding of the offences under Section 117 (e) and to plead guilty and pay the fine for the offence under Section 285 BNS. If the petitioner decides to plead guilty, he shall be permitted to do so through his lawyer.