Accidental Brushing Against Judge's Car Not Offence Of Assault On Public Servant: Kerala High Court Quashes Case Against Bus Driver

Justice Syam Kumar V.M. quashed all criminal proceedings initiated against the driver of a private bus booked for allegedly injuring and obstructing the official driver of a judicial officer.

The Court noted that from the facts of the case, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 324 [Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means] and 353 [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty] Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984 [Mischief causing damage to public property] are not made out.

The prosecution allegation was that the accused/petitioner, who was driving a private bus, overtook the official vehicle of the MACT Judge that was driven by the de facto complainant and the bus collided with the rear portion of the right back door of the official car.

It is also alleged that though the de facto complainant sounded horn, the accused did not stop the bus and continued driving in a rash and negligent manner. The right side front door of the car was damaged and the glass pane was shattered, causing injuries to the official driver.

A crime was registered and subsequently Final Report was also filed. The case was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate with the petitioner as the sole accused when he approached the High Court seeking to quash the same.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the offences under the provisions are not made out as there is no assault or use of criminal force against a public servant discharging his official duty. It was also pointed out that the petitioner did not have any intention or knowledge for committing the alleged offences and therefore, the ingredients of the offences are not made out.

Additionally, it was argued that the vehicle driven by the complainant would not fall within the definition of “public transport” as per Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act.

The prosecution opposed the plea contended that the rash and negligent driving of the bus caused damage to the official car and obstructed the complainant, who was discharging his official duty. It was further argued that the petitioner's action was the direct cause for injuring the complainant.

The prosecutor also pointed out that an amount of Rs. 60,000 was incurred in repairing the official car and also that from the nature of the damage, it can be seen that the same was not an accidental brushing but a deliberate act, satisfying the requirement of mens rea.

The Court examined Section 353 IPC as well as Apex Court decisions that interpreted the ingredients of the same. It found that from facts of the case, there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner assaulted or used criminal force or had criminal intent to obstruct the complainant or any public servant from discharging official duties.

It observed that mere brushing or contact of the bus against the car in the course of overtaking cannot be brought within the scope of Section 353:

“to constitute an offence under the said action it is required that there must be an actual assault or criminal force against a public servant while they are on duty or to stop them from performing their duty. What is intended is much more than a mere 'obstruction' from performing the official duty. There must be the use of physical energy against the person with the intent to prevent him from performing his lawful duties…In the absence of any direct, deliberate or intentional use of force, the mere brushing or contact of the bus against the car in the course of overtaking cannot be brought within the scope and ambit of the said provision.”

Next, the Court dealt with the allegation under Section 324 IPC. It noted that there was no allegation regarding use of dangerous means or weapons, especially since it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the complainant was injured due to the breaking of car window. Thus, the Court found that invocation of Section 324 IPC was legally unsustainable.

Finally, the Court considered the allegation under the PDPP Act. After examining Section 3(2), it was opined that the ingredients of the offence is not satisfied in the case since the provision does not contemplate a judicial officer's official vehicle as a 'public property'.

The Court remarked:

“Undoubtedly being an official vehicle purchased and maintained using the amounts availed from the state exchequer and being used as a conveyance for a judicial officer, the same could be deemed a 'Public Property' on that count. However, 'Public Property' to which Section 3(2)(e) of the Act of 1984 is extended has been specifically enumerated in the said Section. When the legislature has specifically enumerated a class of 'Public Property' that is intended to be covered by the relevant statute, then the said enumerated property alone can be termed to possess the protection envisaged by the statute or by the relevant provision. Further the said statute was never intended to deal with isolated incidents like the one at hand which lack an element of assault and criminal force aimed at causing destruction to a 'Public Property' and would fall more within the category of motor accident. It is not open to widen or extend the scope of Section 3 (2) (e) of the Act of 1984 by an interpretative exercise to mean any 'Public Property' in its all pervading and general sense.”

Finding that none of the offences can even be made out prima facie against the petitioner, the Court felt it appropriate to quash all criminal proceedings so as not to constitute an abuse of process of law.

Thus, it allowed the plea.

Case No: Crl.MC No. 5636 of 2021

Case Title: Shajeer v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 210

Counsel for the petitioner: Gokul Das V.V.H., Ameena R., Poornima S. Nair

Counsel for the respondent: Maya M.N. – Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Order