The court emphasized that for a charge under Section 353 IPC to stand, it must be proven that the public servant was executing their duties at the time of the incident.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the accused persons to quash the P.R.C.No.159 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi.

2. Pending proceedings, the parties have entered into compromise on

19.02.2026, wherein the defacto complainant had agreed that he has no objection to quash the charge sheet as against the petitioners.

3.The defacto complainant as well as the accused persons are present before this Court and the defacto complainant had acknowledged the fact that he had agreed for quashing the charge sheet.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that one of the allegation as against the accused persons is under Section 132 of BNS 2023, which is relatable Section 353 of IPC. He pointed out that the incident having taken place at the residence of the defacto complainant and on a public holiday. Hence, Section 353 IPC is not attracted. He has also relied on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Mohammed Kutty Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2004 CRI. L.J.1603 especially para No.5 :

5. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant is punishable as stated in that section. P.W.2 is a public servant but at the time when the occurrence took place near the Check Post, Tholpetty he was not in the execution of his duty as such public servant. In order to attract Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved that the person who was assaulted or against whom criminal force was used was in execution of his duty as such public servant. So, even if the evidence of the witnesses is accepted as true, it is not at all possible to say that the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code was committed since even as per the statements made by P.W.2 and P.W.7, P.W.2 was not discharging any official duty as a public servant at the place where the occurrence took place.

5. In view of the above said facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charges against the petitioners could be quashed. Accordingly, charge sheet filed in P.R.C.No.159 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi, stands quashed.