PUNIT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants have filed this revision against the order dated 22-2-2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, in Criminal Case No. 17 of 2005, framing the charge against the applicants under section 353 & 506-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that prima- facie from the facts and material on record no ingredients for framing the charge of the offence under section 353 & 506-B of the I.P.C. are made out. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the applicants had assaulted or used criminal force against the complainant with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as public servant. Since the accused persons were wife and relatives of the complainant, it cannot be said that their intention was to obstruct the complainant from discharging his duty.

(3.) In short the prosecution case is that complainant Sandeep Pathak is posted as Assistant Grade-III in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge, Raisen. On 7-12005 at about 3.00 p.m. when he was performing his official work in the office, petitioners entered the office and compelled him to come out of the office, his wife Kalpana Pathak and Ashok Shukla tore the papers, which were in his typewriter machine. They obstructed him in doing his official work and tried to drag him out of the office.