[S. 353 IPC] Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against 58-Year-Old Booked For Using 'Loud Voice' Against Public Servant In Govt Office
Quashing the criminal proceedings against a 58-year-old man from Ernakulam, the Kerala High Court has said that Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted when there is no allegation of use of assault or criminal force, or in absence of an accusation that such act was done to deter the public servant from discharging her officials duty.The accused had been booked under...
Quashing the criminal proceedings against a 58-year-old man from Ernakulam, the Kerala High Court has said that Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted when there is no allegation of use of assault or criminal force, or in absence of an accusation that such act was done to deter the public servant from discharging her officials duty.
The accused had been booked under Section 353 IPC ( Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) for entering Karimannoor Agriculture Office in April 2019, abusing the office staff in loud voice and "deterring" the agriculture officer from discharging her official duty.
Justice Kauser Edappagath said the prosecution has no case that the petitioner used any force on the officer, and rather the allegation is that after entering into the officer's room, the accused questioned her for entering his property and asked who gave her the authority to do so.
"Apart from uttering these words, there was absolutely no use of force or even an attempt to use force. Apart from the vague allegation that the official time of the 2nd respondent [officer] was lost on account of the alleged acts of the petitioner, there is no specific allegation that the above mentioned words were uttered by the petitioner with the intent to deter the 2nd respondent from discharging her duty", the court observed.
The accused had approached the high court against the proceedings pending against him before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha. It was contended by the counsels for the Petitioner, Advocates C.P. Udayabhanu and Navaneeth N. Nath, that no offence under Section 353 IPC could be made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegation in the First Information Statement, along with the materials collected during the investigation were believed in toto.
The Court observed that as per Section 353, in order to attract the offence of assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his official duty, it is required to be established by the prosecution that there was assault or use of criminal force and such assault or use of criminal force was made on a public servant while he was acting in the execution of his duty or with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by him in the discharge of his duty.
Perusing Section 351 of IPC which defines 'assault', the court said mere words do not amount to 'assault' and that the victim must apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation was about to use criminal force to the victim.
The Court also relied upon Jaidas v. State of Kerala & Anr (2017) to emphasise that entering into a public office to ventilate one's grievance and to enquire about status of an application does not amount to criminal trespass.
"Another Single Bench of this Court in Hariprasad and another v. State of Kerala [I.L.R. 2017 (2) Kerala 395] has held that in order to attract an offence under Section 353 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had used criminal force with the intention to cause injury, fear or annoyance to the public servant. Yet another Single Bench recently in Rilgin V. George and Another v. State of Kerala and Another [2021 (4) KHC 223] has held that to attract Section 353 of IPC, one of the main ingredients is that the assault or criminal force should be to deter the public servant who was discharging his official duty."
The Court allowed the petition on finding that the offence under Section 353 was not found to be attracted.
"Hence, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.543 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha are hereby quashed," it said.
Senior Public Prosecutor, T.V. Neema appeared on behalf of the respondents in the instant case.
Case Title: P.V. Mathai v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 543