THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7624 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner, who is a practicing advocate at Chittoor, filed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.188 of 2007 arising out of Crime No.25 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor, wherein he was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 IPC of Chittoor II Town Police Station. The first respondent, Chief Manager of Indian Bank, Main Branch, Chittoor, lodged a complaint with the Chittoor II Town Police Station on 19.02.2007 stating that the petitioner/accused along with his wife jointly borrowed the amount from the Indian Bank, Kongareddipalli Branch, Chittoor, for construction of house, and committed default in payment of loan. He issued a notice to the borrower/guarantor under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and the same was returned. Then the said notice was duly published in the newspapers on 9.03.2006. On publication of notice, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2006 before the Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor seeking injunction restraining the complainant from further proceedings. On dismissal of the injunction application on 19.02.2007 by the civil Court, the complainant along with one Mr. Chiranjeevi Rao, the Branch Manager of Kongareddipalli Branch; Vijendra Kumar, Assistant Manager, Legal Section of Circle Office, Chittoor; M. Subramanyam Reddy, Bank’s Pannel Advocate; Mr. Munaswamy Panel Engineer; Tharakanath, Videographer and one PC 2308 Ethirajulu of Chittoor II Town Police Station, went to the house of the petitioner, which was mortgaged to the bank as security for the loan availed, to take symbolic possession by affixing the notices and to take clippings as an evidence to submit the same to their higher authorities. When they all went to the house and tried to affix notices, the accused Karthvarayana prevented them from executing their official duties. He threatened to assault Chiranjeevi Rao and the complainant. He has also assaulted the videographer and tried to pull away the camera from him to damage the same. The accused threatened the complainant and Chiranjeevi Rao with dire consequences through gestures with hands, and the same was recorded by the videographer. When the first respondent pasted the notice on his house, the accused torn away the same and threatened all the officials stating that he would file a case that the officials have criminally trespassed into his house. By threatening them the accused has caused damage to the Bank’s reputation. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a crime and after due investigation laid charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the lower Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the case, as the allegations in the charge sheet does not disclose commission of offence under Sections 353 and 506 IPC. Further the first respondent is not a public servant as defined under Section 21 IPC. Hence, the allegation made in the charge sheet does not show that the petitioner used any criminal force as contemplated under Sections 350 and 351 IPC. Further the allegation does not show that the petitioner used criminal intimidation. Hence the charge under Section 506 IPC cannot be sustainable. He also contended that the proceedings for recovery of amount are under challenge in W.P.No.23852 of 2007 and as a counter blast the above complaint was made by the first respondent, and the same is the subject matter of Crl.P.No.5397 of 2007. I do not see any force in the contention that the first respondent complainant, who is a Chief Manager of Indian Bank, is not a public servant, as defined under Section 21 IPC. The Supreme Court in Union of Inida v. Ashok Kumar Mitra[1] after referring to the earlier judgments held that the view of the Calcutta High Court that the Branch Manager of Bank of India is not a public servant under Section 21 IPC cannot be sustained, since a Nationalized Bank is a Corporation, established by a Central Act and owned and controlled by the Central Government, the employees of a Nationalized Bank are public servants within the meaning of Section 21 IPC. The complaint allegation clearly goes to show that when the Bank Officials along with others visited the house of the petitioner to affix the notice, the petitioner prevented them from executing their official duties and threatened Chiranjeevi Rao, assaulted on the videographer and tried to damage the video camera. The petitioner further threatened the complainant Chiranjeevi Rao with dire consequences by gestures, which was recorded by the videographer. Section 353 IPC reads as under. “Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty :- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the 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, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” The allegation clearly disclose that not only the petitioner prevented the Bank officials from affixing the notice, but also tried to damage the video camera by pulling away the camera from the videographer, and threatened him with dire consequences that he will file a case against them for criminal trespass into his house, which amounts to using force in the manner prescribed, and prevent them from discharging their official duty. Therefore, it is not a fit case where this Court can quash the proceedings. The Criminal petition fails, and the same is dismissed. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 13th August, 2010 Js. [1] (1995) 2 SCC 768