ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.340 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.2019, while the first petitioner travelled in her two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-02-BL-0527 without wearing helmet, the second respondent stopped her and questioned the same, for which, the first petitioner did not show any document of the vehicle and stated that she is a practising Advocate and flea from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the first petitioner came along with her husband, namely the second petitioner in a four wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-02-BP-6039 and abused the second respondent with filthy language by showing the car that they are practising Advocates. Hence, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent. On the basis of the complaint, the first respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.103 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and the same has been altered into Sections 129 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. The first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.340 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent filed the final report by citing 14 witnesses to substantiate the charges for the offences under Sections 129 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. All the witnesses are police officials along with four auto rickshaw persons. Even according to the prosecution, the provisions related to Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C were not made, since there is no witness stated that the allegation was made in front of them. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is false, baseless and the petitioners are being law holder have been attracted into this criminal proceedings.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 and also under Sections

129 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act

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 assau