ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.51 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, as against the petitioners.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2016, when the second respondent, who was serving as Head Constable along with one Home Guard were on police patrol, at about 11.00 p.m., at Pataslayanvilai Junction, the accused persons had restrained and abused the defacto complainant and thereby threatened him with dire consequences. Further, they also restrained him from discharging their official duty.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it is not at all possible to believe that the police officer, who was accompanied by a Home Guard, was abused, assaulted and threatened with dire consequences that too in the junction. Originally, on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case has been registered in Crime No.219 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 383, 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. Subsequently, after completion of investigation filed final report for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. He further submitted that no offence is made out as against the petitioner, since no ingredients are available to attract the same. In support of his contention, he also relied upon various Judgments.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent.

5.On a perusal of the statement recorded under Section

161(3) of Cr.P.C and the charge-sheet filed as against the petitioners revealed that they were charged for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

6.Insofar as the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C is concerned, the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C are that the person accused of the said charge should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with intent to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as public servant. On a perusal of the entire materials produced along with the charge-sheet, it appears that no force was used by the petitioners to commit such an offence. That apart, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioners either assaulted the second respondent or used criminal force to prevent that the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C are not made out.

7.The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in

2015 (7) SCC 423, held as follows:-

“A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C are that the person accused of the said charge should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with intent to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the second respondent or used criminal force to prevent that the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C are not made out”.

8.Insofar as the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C is concerned, the essential ingredients that intended to prevent obscene acts being performed in public to the annoyance of the public at large. Annoyance to others is an essential ingredient to the offence under the Section. On a perusal of the materials produced by the prosecution, there are no traces for attributing the annoyance to others. That apart, there is no statement that the alleged act caused annoyance to others. Hence, there is no allegation to attract t