The absence of evidence of assault or criminal force negates the charge under Section 353 IPC, allowing for the quashing of the final report.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report in P.R.C.No.319 of 2023, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli, filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC .

2. The allegation in the final report is that when the second respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Thalaiyuthu Police Station, along with his team, attempted to apprehend one Subash, arrayed as A1, standing on the road in a suspicious manner, the petitioner and two others, who are his friends, prevented the police from apprehending the said Subash; and that thereafter, the said Subash took a knife and threatened the police, which was videographed by the Sub Inspector of Police. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the impugned final report, the only charge against the petitioner is under Section 353 of the IPC ; that there is no allegation that the petitioner used criminal force or assaulted the police so as to attract the offence punishable under of the ; and that, in any case, the allegations against the petitioner are trivial in nature and would be covered under Section 95 of the .

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would submit that the allegations would attract the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC , as the petitioner and two others prevented the police from apprehending A1, who was armed with a knife and also threatened the police of dire consequences.

5. Admittedly, no weapon was seized from the petitioner. Even if the allegation against the petitioner is accepted as true, it only suggests that the petitioner had prevented a public servant from apprehending A1. There is no allegation of the use of criminal force or assault by the petitioner. This Court, in similar circumstances, in Anbuchelvan @ Anbuselvan vs. State of Tamil Nadu , represented by the Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station and another, vide order dated 20.12.2024 rendered in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15357 of 2024, has held as follows:

24. Before entering into further discussion with regard to the offence under Section 353 I.P.C., it is necessary to refer the said section:

353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka reported in(2015)7 SCC 423 has held that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:

“A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such 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 respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent f