RENJITH B.S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C.No.934/13 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No -I, Punalur to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.934/13 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No -I, Punalur. The case was originated on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent which according to the petitioner, is a false and frivolous complaint made with an intention to harass him and prevent him from initiating action against the Panchayat, before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thenmala Police Station on the basis of which, Crime No.296/13 of that Police Station was registered against the petitioner alleging offences under Section 353 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.934/13 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No -I, Punalur. Even going by the allegations in the complaint filed by the second respondent, none of the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code has been mentioned. There is nothing to show that the person whose duty has been prevented by the petitioner, was a public servant coming under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code was also not mentioned. Further, in the bail order, this court has observed that a person deputed by the Secretary to do certain thing which is not part of his official duty will not come under the purview of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code so as to make him a public servant. Further, subsequently, Section 427 of Indian Penal Code has been deleted and the main allegation was that, by removal of that knob, causing damage to the motor has resulted in preventing the public servant from discharging the duty which was found to be false during the investigation itself. Further, there is no case for the complainant or the alleged public servant that any criminal force or assault has been used by the petitioner against him so as to bring within the definition of Section 353 of Indian Penal Code, the act punishable under that provision. So, even if the entire allegation is accepted, the offence has not been made out and allowing the case to proceed against will only amount to abuse of process of court and so, he is of entitled to get relief of quashing the proceedings and he filed the petition seeking the following relief:

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the person against whom the offence was alleged to have been committed is a part time sweeper appointed in the Panchayat and he was not really appointed by the competent authority and he will not come under the purview of public servant under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, there is nothing on record to show that he was deputed for doing that work at that particular time when the offence was committed as well. The allegations are also will not reveal that any criminal force or assault has been done to deter him from doing the work in order to bring the offence under the Section. He had relied on the decisions reported in S.V.Subramania Pillai Vs. G.J.Ponniah [CDJ 1939 MHC 114] and Muhammed Kutty Vs. State of Kerala [2004 (1) KLT 331] in support of his case.