Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Persons Charged With Threatening, Abusing Police Officials When Questioned On Keeping Hotel Open After 11:30 PM
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against two persons who allegedly abused police personnel with unparliamentary words, threatened them with dire consequences and restrained them from discharging their official duties when questioned for running their hotel business beyond 11.30 pm.A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed...
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against two persons who allegedly abused police personnel with unparliamentary words, threatened them with dire consequences and restrained them from discharging their official duties when questioned for running their hotel business beyond 11.30 pm.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Syed Esa Ibrahim and Syed Mujahid Mehdi and quashed the case pending against them for offences under sections 341, 353, 506 and 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
It was alleged that accused No.1 was running the hotel business beyond 11.30 pm on the date of the incident, and when the complainant and other police personnel questioned the same, the accused abused them with unparliamentary words and threatened them with dire consequences, restraining them from discharging their official duties.
Petitioners argued that even accepting the allegations made against them, did not prima facie satisfy the essential elements needed to constitute the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would be an abuse of process of law.
The State opposed the plea saying that the petitioners by restraining the police personnel from discharging their duties and abusing them, had committed the aforesaid offences and the veracity of the allegations could be considered during the trial.
The bench referred to Section 353 of IPC which deals with assault or criminal force to deter the public servant from discharge of his duties.
It said “to constitute an offence under Section 353 of IPC, a person must have assaulted or used criminal force in deterring the public servant from discharging the official duties. The term 'criminal force' is defined under Sections 349 and 350 of IPC. A reading of the aforesaid provisions indicate that, to use criminal force means causing injury, fear or annoyance to the person against whom criminal force is used.”
Accordingly, it held that in the present case, there was no allegation, or any material against the petitioners for either assaulting or using criminal force, to deter the police personnel from discharging their duties, except that the they abused and threatened the police personnel which does not satisfy the requirement of Sections 349 and 350 of IPC.
Therefore, it was found that the essential elements to constitute the commission of an offence under Section 353 of IPC were conspicuously absent.
Court added “Though it is alleged that the petitioners are running the hotel beyond the stipulated period, utmost may constitute an offence under Section 188 of IPC and the cognizance of the said offences can be taken only upon a complaint in writing by the officers prescribed under Section 189 of IPC. However, the police to overcome the said provision have not invoked the said provision.”
Noting that to constitute an offence under Section 341 of IPC, a person must have wrongfully restrained another person from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits. The Court said that in the present case, there was no allegation or material that the petitioners had restrained police personnel from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits, except the allegation that they restrained the police personnel from discharging their duties.
Threatening the police personnel with dire consequences has not resulted in a breach of public peace or committing any other offence by the complainant or his staff, which is an essential ingredient to constitute commission of an offence under Section 506 of IPC, the Bench held while allowing the plea and quashing the case against the petitioners.
Appearance: Advocate Mohammed Tahir for Petitioners.
HCGP K Parameshwarappa for R1.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 467
Case Title: Syed Esa Ibrahim & ANR AND State By Channapatna East PS
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10483 OF 2022