Sureddy Srinivas vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the ingredients of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which penalizes assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their official duties, were not satisfied. The charge sheet merely stated that the petitioner refused to accept a notice and that another faculty member provoked students to surround the Tahsildar. The Court found no evidence to prove that the petitioner used criminal force or assaulted the public servants to prevent them from discharging their duties. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Manik Taneja and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, which emphasized that the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC require assault or criminal force with the intent to prevent a public servant from discharging their duty, and that no such force was used in the present case. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sureddy Srinivas, is an organizer of a coaching center. A complaint was lodged by a police constable (LW9) alleging that the coaching center, where his wife was a student, lacked basic facilities. LW9 reported this to the Tahsildar (LW1). The Tahsildar's staff (LWs 2-4) went to serve a notice on the coaching center's director. The charge sheet alleges that the petitioner refused to accept the notice, and another faculty member, Harinadh, provoked students to surround LW1, obstructing their official duties. A case was registered under Section 353 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner sought to quash these proceedings, arguing that the ingredients of Section 353 IPC were not met.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1537 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the offence under Section 353 read with 34 IPC? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the charge sheet does not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC, as there was no criminal assault or use of criminal force by the petitioner to deter public servants from discharging their duties. The case appears to have arisen from a personal dispute between LW9 and the petitioner, and the wife of LW9, who initially complained about facilities, is not even listed as a witness. Revenue's arguments: The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner were sufficient to constitute an offense punishable under Section 353 read with 34 IPC and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.