BRAJA KISHORE MANGARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED in G.R. Case No. 158/84 in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda is the Petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order of cognisance dated 20th June, 1984 taking cognisance under Section 353 and 506 I.P.C. The process server by name Gadadhar Misra has been to village Lendu to serve a summon on the Petitioner in complaint case No. ICC 142/83 wherein the Petitioner was an accused. It was reported by the said process server that as the Petitioner refused to receive the summons, he hung the same on the wall of the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter filed an affidavit on 10.2.84 against the said process server that his report was completely false and conducted. The said process server made an application to the District Judge, alleging therein that on 12.2.84 at 3.30 P.M., while he was returning to Court after serving summons, the Petitioner met him near Khurda State Bank Chhak and rebuked him in obscene language in presence of two persons. The District Judge sent that application to the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate who in turn forwarded the same to the Officer -in -charge, Khurda Police Station to treat it as an F.I.R. and take necessary action. Subsequently Gadadhar Misra also gave a written report at Khurda Police Station. The Officer -in -charge, Khurda Police Station registered as case and started investigation. In course of investigation, statements of the two witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 11.5.84 against the Petitioner under Sections 353 and 506 I.P.C. On the basis of the said charge -sheet and on perusal of the supporting materials, the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate having been cognisance under Section 353 and 506 I.P.C. against the Petitioner, the present application has been filed for quashing the same.

(2.) MR . Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the averments made in the application of Gadadhar Misra which has been treated as F.I.R. in the case together with the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure during the investigation do not constitute the offence for which cognisance has been taken and, therefore, the said order of cognisance must be quashed.

(3.) SECTION 353 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of assault or use of criminal force to a public servant in 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. 'Assault' has been defined in Section 351 and 'Criminal force' has been defined in Section 349 and 350 I.P.C. The necessary ingredients to attract Section 353 I.P.C. are: