The Bombay High Court allowed a Discharge Application filed by 3 Lawyers in a 17-yr-old criminal case and observed that mere restraint of an Official would not amount to an offence under Section 353 of IPC. The High Court further termed this matter as a classic case of abuse of powers exercised by the CBI Officers / staff.

The Criminal Revision Application challenged the rejection order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Discharge Application filed by the Applicants. Out of the three applicant-accused persons, two applicants are Advocates by profession and the third applicant was a law intern undergoing his internship with the first Applicant at the time of incident. He is a practicing Advocate at the Bar now.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav asserted, “The Police Authorities have also blindly played a subservient role to the CBI Officers by arresting the Applicants without application of mind about the applicability of Section 353 IPC.”

Advocate Meenal Chandnani appeared for the Applicants while APP Manisha Tidke represented the Respondent.

The FIR was registered against the Applicants under Section 353 r/w Section 34 of IPC on the complaint of a Police Inspector under Section 353 r/w Section 34 of IPC in 2007 alleging that when the CBI team was undertaking search in the office premises of the Company at Vakola in the morning for collecting evidence in regard to a case registered under Sections 120(b) 420 r/w Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of AntiCorruption Act, three unknown persons (referring to Applicants) came their without obtaining their permission. The complainant informed them that a lawful search was going on and they should go away from there but they refused to go and restrained the CBI Officers from carrying on the search.

Police Officers deliberated with the Applicants who informed them that they were legal advisors of the Company’s owner and therefore they were present there on her request. The Applicants were then asked to accompany the Police Officers to the Police Station where they were arrested with the common intention to obstruct government work of conducting search operation and the police recorded statements of four witnesses who were four CBI Officers apart from the complainant. The Applicants were arrested and released on bail on the following day. Charge sheet was filed in the year 2008.

It was brought to the Court’s notice that Trial has not commenced till date after 17 long years and the prosecution only recorded the statements of all five CBI Officers / Staff. It was the case of the applicants that their Discharge Applications ought to have been considered as the instant case was maliciously and falsely foisted by CBI on Applicants to set the criminal process in motion against them.

The Bench explained that the application of provisions of Section 353 IPC would involve causing obstruction to any public servant who may be assaulted by use of criminal force against him, inter alia, with intent that he would thereby be prevented or deterred from discharging his official duty. It was noticed that in the five statements recorded by the prosecution witnesses, none of the ingredients attributable to Section 353 IPC could be gathered from therein.

“It is seen that a substantial period of 17 years has passed since the date of the incident. Lives of three Applicants before me who are professional Advocates at the Bar today have been stigmatized because of the stigma of accused attached to their names for the past 17 years”, it said while also adding, “On perusing the same record, I do not find any material whatsoever present therein which can be applied for indicting the Applicants for obstructing the CBI Officers.”

For the applicability of Section 353 IPC, the test is whether the Officer at the time of assault was lawfully discharging his duty imposed on him. Force or assault must be directed towards him. In the present case all that happened between the parties was an exchange of mere words, namely by the Applicants on the one side and the Police Inspector on the other side representing the CBI. “It is clear and an undoubtable case of wounded ego and affront caused to the CBI Officer when he was asked to show his identity card and identify himself which led to subsequent events and complaint against Applicants under Section 353 IPC. There is nothing on record and even in the FIR or the statements of four (4) CBI Officers / Staff recorded by the Investigating Officer to show use of assult, criminal force, obstruction and preventing the search which was carried out for the past 10 hours to stop or being halted by them”, it added.

The Bench found no evidence whatsoever in the statements of the five CBI Officers which have been recorded that Applicants allegedly assaulted them by using criminal force against the public servants i.e. the CBI Officers who were discharging their duty as public servants. Mere restraint of an official would not amount to an offence under Section 353 of IPC.The Bench thus said, “Asking the CBI Officers to show their identity cards is not restraining them from carrying out their duty. This is the only thing that has transpired in the present case leading to the indictment of Applicants. Applicant No. 1 was the Advocate of the party concerned. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have unnecessarily suffered the consequences of the above action due to no fault of theirs.”

The Bench further held, “This is a classis case of abuse of powers exercised by the CBI Officers / staff. On the strength of their own statements and FIR that is registered, on the face of the allegation the alleged claim of the complainant can never be proven under Section 353 IPC. Assault, criminal force, obstruction of a government servant and preventing search operation to continue cannot be proved or proven by the prosecution as there is virtually no such allegation.”

Allowing the Criminal Revision Application, the Bench directed the Respondent-State to pay costs of Rs 15,000 to each of the 3 Applicants as costs awarded by the Court for their ignominy and sufferance of 17 long years.

Cause Title: Gobindram Daryanumal Talreja & Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:44344]

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate Meenal Chandnan, Gobindram D. Talreja, Haresh Sobhraj Motwani, Prateek Naishadh Sanghvi

Respondents: APP Manisha Tidke, PSI Mangesh H. Sant

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Milind N. JadhavSection 353 IPC

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.