The court ruled that the allegations against the petitioner lacked sufficient legal substance, warranting the quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

O R D E R

The accused in C.C No.1687/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thirur has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. The charge against the petitioner is that he committed offence under Section 341 , 294(b) and 353 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is that on 31.03.2014, while the de facto complainant, a Special Tahsildar assigned with the duty of static surveillance in connection with the Lok Sabha election, was conducting vehicle checking, the petitioner wrongfully restrained and verbally abused her, and obstructed her official duty. It is stated that, when the de facto complainant questioned the petitioner about the source of the cash amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- and gold ornaments found in the car in which he was travelling, the petitioner stood in front of the de facto complainant, challenged her authority, and sped away by uttering abusive words after pushing aside the police personnel assisting the de facto complainant. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended that none of the offences as alleged by the prosecution, are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. Though it is alleged that the petitioner stood in front of the de facto complainant and questioned her authority to inspect the vehicle of the petitioner, there is absolutely no statement tendered by the de facto complainant to the effect that, by the aforesaid act, she was prevented from proceeding in any direction by the petitioner. Thus, the offence of wrongful restraint envisaged under Section 341 I.P.C is prima facie not attracted, in the facts and circumstances of the case. As regards the allegation of commission of offence under Section 294 (b) I.P.C, it is pertinent to note that neither the de facto complainant nor any of the witnesses cited by the investigating agency had given statement disclosing any obscene words uttered by the petitioner. Therefore, the allegation pertaining to the commission of the aforesaid offence also remains unsubstantiated by the final report and the accompanying records relied on by the prosecution. The offence under Section 353 I.P.C is attributed against the petitioner for the reason that he pushed aside the police personnel assisting the de facto complainant, and left the place in the car in which he was travelling. There also, the prosecution records lack the necessary particulars to show that the official duty of the de facto complainant in connection with vehicle checking was prevented by the petitioner by resorting to any assault or criminal force. There is no case for the prosecution that the petitioner escaped from the custody of the de facto complainant and her team by using criminal force or committing assault. Nor has the prosecution got a case that the de facto complainant was not able to conduct the inspection of the vehicle of the petitioner due to any act committed by the petitioner deterring or preventing her from proceeding with the above duty. On the other hand, it is apparent from the prosecution records that the de facto complainant and her team were able to conduct the checking of the vehicle of the petitioner, and that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he left the place without disclosing the source of the cash and gold ornaments found in his vehicle. It is not possible to conclude that the allegations in the above regard would constitute the offence under I.P.C. Thus, it has to be stated that none