1. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").

2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in C.C.No.355 of 2012 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry. They are involved in Crime No.614 of 2011 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station registered under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC"). Annexure-A1 is the charge including the first information report. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy is the defacto complainant. Allegation against the petitioners is that on 06.11.2011 at about 10.45 a.m., while the defacto complainant was sitting in his room in the Police Station, the accused persons barged into the Police Station and shouted. At that time, Grade Sub Inspector Haridas was recording the statement of a witness in connection with the investigation of another criminal case. The accused persons picked up quarrel with the Grade Sub inspector Haridas and prevented him from discharging duty. Therefore, the accused have committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the records submitted in this case including the statement submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy.

4. The statement submitted by the Police Officer would show that the 1st petitioner Durga Prasad was a person included in the Rowdy list of Mulanthuruthy Police Station. He was involved in a proceeding under Section 15(1) of Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Kochi Range dated 29.10.2013 was challenged in W.P.(C) No.4293 of 2014 and was quashed as per judgment of this Court dated 10.03.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if we accept the entire prosecution case, the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC is not attracted since the basic elements required therein are not mentioned in the final report. Section 353 IPC deals with assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty. It reads as follows:

"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."

If we read the Section carefully, we will find the two terms defined in the IPC employed in the Section, viz., assault and criminal force. Section 351 IPC defines assault. Going by the facts in this case, we need not interpret the term 'assault' because there is no case either in the first information report or in the final report that the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant. What is alleged is that petitioners used criminal force against the defacto complainant by shouting and thereby they prevented him from discharging official duty. It is also alleged that the petitioners forcefully demanded that the defacto complainant should record the statement of witnesses in another criminal case, in the way the petitioners wanted it.

6. For understanding the term 'criminal force', we have to consider Sections 349 and 350 IPC. They read as follows:

"349. Force.- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that