Mere Running Away From Police Not 'Use Of Criminal Force': Karnataka High Court Quashes Assault Case Against Youth
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a 24-year-old man, accused of assaulting police personnel, while observing that merely running away from police cannot constitute 'use of criminal force' under Section 353 [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty] of the IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275]The single judge bench of Justice...
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a 24-year-old man, accused of assaulting police personnel, while observing that merely running away from police cannot constitute 'use of criminal force' under Section 353 [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty] of the IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition by quashing the charge sheet for offences under Sections 332, 353 and 34 of the IPC.
On the early hours of December 15, 2023, when the police was night patrolling, the petitioner and another accused was stopped by the police out of suspicion. The police allegedly demanded the vehicle documents which was met with a refusal from the accused.
Later, when the complaint was registered by the Police Constable, it was portrayed as the accused assaulting the policemen and fleeing the scene.
“…Section 353 punishes a person who would stop the public servant from performance of official duties by use of criminal force. There is no allegation of use of criminal force. In fact the allegation is, petitioner ran away when the police wanted to stop him. If running away is usage of criminal force against a public servant, there cannot be a better illustration of abuse of the process of the law…”, the court noted in the order, pointing out the discrepancy in invoking Section 153.
The Court noted that the definition of assault under Section 351 requires a gesture or preparation causing apprehension of use of criminal force, and not even mere words..
The Court also highlighted the contradictions between the police complaint and the wound certificate. The complaint was filed based on the assertion that police men have suffered certain injuries from the incident, as evident from the wound certificate.
According to the court, while the complaint by police personnel provided detailed descriptions and addresses of the accused, the wound certificate stated that injuries were sustained 'while trying to catch the suspect', indicating that the alleged incident must have occurred before the suspects were even identified.
“…. The wound certificate [of police] is assault by unknown persons while trying to catch the suspect, while the complaint narrates that the petitioner has tried to assault the policemen on night patrol when they asked the documents. The complaint clearly narrates as to who are the suspects, but the wound certificate narrates that incident has happened on 15-12-2023 at 02.00 a.m. to catch the suspect by then, crime had already been registered. Therefore, whether the complaint came first or the wound certificate came first is a mystery…”, the Court remarked.
The court further disapproved that the police had conducted investigation, and in turn, filed a charge sheet on their own complaint, which raised concerns about the impartiality of the investigation.
Citing the Apex Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court observed that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence against the accused.
Hence, the Court allowed the criminal petition, and quashed the proceedings before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru with regard to the petitioner.
Case Title: Goutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12679 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275