IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009/1ST ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2754 of 2007 ( ) --------------------------- CC.307/2007 of J.M.F.C. - I, CHALAKUDY PETITIONER(S)/IST AND 2ND ACCUSED: --------------------------------- 1. PRADEEP, S/O.GOPALAN, ARIMBOOTH HOUSE, OPP.KSRTC BUS STAND, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SAJEESH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PARAKUTHU VEEDU, THIROOR, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE KORATTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-09-2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 2754 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of September, 2009 ORDER Petition filed by the petitioners (A1 and A2) to quash Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 charge and all other proceedings pursuant to the same pending before Magistrate Court. 2. According to the prosecution, on 15.2.2007 at about 00.15 a.m., accused 1 and 2, in furtherance of common intention, drove a jeep on the National Highway 47 and by placing the jeep across the road, blocked the lorry which was driven on the same road and abused the lorry driver and others and also attempted to assault him. The officials on Highway patrol duty attempted to prevent the same, while the accused criminally intimidated CW6, who was a public servant on duty, stating that he would be finished, if he proceeded forward and thereby committed offences under Sections 283, 294(b), 353, 506(1) and 34 IPC. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioner no offence under Sections 283, 294(b), 506(1) and 34 IPC are made out [Crl.M.C.2754/2007] 2 from the allegations made in Annexure A1 and A2 F.I.R. and the charge-sheet respectively. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that to attract offence under Section 283 there must be an obstruction to the line of navigation and hence offence under Section 283 IPC is not made out. But, no traffic block was there and hence, offence under Section 283 is not attracted, it is submitted. 4. A reading of Section 283 IPC reveals that whether there is any traffic block or not, if by an act committed by the accused obstruction etc. is caused to any person in a public line of navigation, the offence will be attracted. Therefore, on the ground raised, I am not inclined to quash the charge laid against petitioner. It is also submitted that from the allegations made in the charge Section 506(i) IPC alone will be attracted. As per Section 503 IPC, a person can be said to be committed criminal intimidation if he threatens another with any injury to his person. so, in that sense, it is not proper at this stage, in the absence of any evidence, to hold that the words allegedly stated by accused will not constitute offence under Section 506(i) IPC. It is a matter of evidence and it can be decided only by adducing evidence. 5. Regarding offence under Section 294(b), it is noted in the [Crl.M.C.2754/2007] 3 charge that accused abused the lorry driver but the words used by him are not mentioned in the charge sheet. Whether or not such words find a place in the statements given by the relevant witnesses including the lorry driver to whom such words are used, cannot be examined in the present proceedings, since such statements are not produced before court. A mere omission to state the details in the charge sheet filed by the police may not be sufficient to quash the proceedings. 6. It is also contended that offence under Section 353 IPC is also not attracted, since there is no use of any criminal force or assault alleged against the accused. It is true that the prosecution has no case that the accused have used any criminal force. A reading of Section 351 makes it appear that it may not be necessary for using any force against the public servant to constitute “assault” referred to in Section 353 IPC. It is sufficient if there is any gesture made by the accused. Illustration © under Section 353 makes the position clear. The question whether there was any gesture or not is also a matter of evidence. The relevant statements of the witnesses are not before this Court to examine whether there was any “assault” as stated in Section 351 IPC. 7. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to quash either Annexure A1 or Annexure A2 on the grounds urged. The [Crl.M.C.2754/2007] 4 documents produced in this case disclose that there are allegations against petitioners which will prima facie constitute offences. If the court has to quash the charge, the court has to examine whether the entire materials produced under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. disclose the alleged offences or not. In the absence of production of relevant records on the facts of this case, it may not be proper to quash the charge merely on the ground that one or two allegations which would constitute ingredients of offence are missing in the charge sheet. I am of opinion that the case has to go for trial and all the contentions raised have to be considered at the appropriate stage but there is no ground to quash the complaint or the charge. I make it clear that if same contentions are raised in the appropriate stage, the trial court will dispose of the case untrammelled by any of the observations, if any, made in this judgment on merit, including on the question of law. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE. krs.