Judgment 1 WP148-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 148 OF 2023 Shri Rambhau Krushnarao Raut, Aged about 66 years, Occ.: Retired, R/o. Hanuman Nagar, Near Nagpure Ata Chakki, Chandrapur. …. PETITIONER. // VERSUS // 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Ramnagar Police Station, Chandrapur. 2. Balwant Pundlik Tikle, Aged about 58 Years, Occu.: Advocate, R/o. Ramnagar, Shende Plot, Chandrapur. …. RESPONDENTS . ______________________________________________________________ Shri S.P.Bhandarkar, Adv. a/w Shri Atharva Khadse, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri N.R.Rode, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri Anil A. Dhawas, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ______________________________________________________________ CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : MARCH 03, 2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : MARCH 19, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2025:BHC-NAG:2734 Judgment 2 WP148-2023.odt 3. This petition takes exception to the order dated 28/06/2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrte, Chandrapur rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for altering the charge. 4. The brief facts of the present case are as under : The petitioner lodged a criminal complaint on 25/09/2012 and registered with Ram Nagar Police Station, Chandrapur vide Crime No.3214 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 186 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent. The investigation was made and accordingly the charge-sheet came to be filed on 30/10/2012. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after considering the material available on record and the contents of the First Information Report framed the charge on 04/03/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 294, 506 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads thus: ^^fnukad 25-09-2012 jksth nqikjh 2-15 rs 2-45 oktrkP;k lqekjkl lkoZtfud U;k; uksan.kh dk;kZy;] e/kqcu Iyk>k] f’kokthuxj] panziwj] rk- ft- panziwj ;sFks rqEgh vkjksihus fQ;kZnh jkeHkkm d`”.kjko jkmr ;kauk ^^eknjpksn] esjk dke ukgh gqok rks rq>s ns[k yqaxk] rsjh ekWa dh pqn] rsjh cfg.k dh pqn** v’kk vf’yy ‘kCnkar lkoZtfud fBdk.kh f’kohxkG dsyh] vkf.k R;kvUo;s Hkkjrh; naM lafgrsP;k dye 294 vUo;s naM.kh; xqUgk dsyk o lnj xqUg;kph eh n[ky ?ksryh vkgs- Judgment 3 WP148-2023.odt nqljs vls dh ofjy LFkGh] osGh o fBdk.kh rqEgh vkjksihus fQ;kZnhyk ^^vkWfQl ds ckgj vkuk rsjs dks ,slk lcd fldkmaxk] vdsyk fey rq>s ns[k yqaxk** v’kh /kedh nsowu /kkdniV dsys T;keqGs fQ;kZnh Hk;Hkhr >kyh] vkf.k R;kvUo;s rqEgh Hkkjrh; naM fo/kkukps dye 506 vUo;s naMuh; xqUgk dsyk o lnj xqUg;kph eh n[ky ?ksryh vkgs- frljs vls dh] ofjy fno’kh] osGh o fBdk.kh rqEgh vkjksihus fQ;kZnh R;kaps ljdkjh dke djhr vlrkauk R;kauk R;kaps drZO;kps dke dj.;kl vki[kq’khus gjdr dsyh o R;kvUo;s Hkkjrh; naM fo/kkups dye 186 varxZr xqUgk dsyk- ojhy xwUg;klaca/kh ri’khy vkjksihyk ejkBh Hkk”ksr okpwu o letkowu lkaxhryk-** The applicant, thereafter filed an application to alter the charge and prayed for addition of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was performing his official duty being a Public Officer, the respondent No.2 prevented him from discharging of his duty. 7. The said application was opposed by the respondent by filing the reply. In the reply it is categorically contended that in absence of relevant ingredients of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 353 cannot be added. 8. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after considering the prayer for addition of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code made by the petitioner and the reply filed by the respondent, rejected the said Judgment 4 WP148-2023.odt application by making specific observations that there is no allegation of assault or use of criminal force against the informant by the accused. It is further observed that the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 9. Hence, a short question involved is, whether in light of the allegations made in the First Information Report and the material available on record, whether Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code would attract ? 10. At this juncture, it would be relevant to go through the language of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads thus : “353. 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 to 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.” 11. Bare reading of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, it is evident that to constitute an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, assault or criminal force is sine qua non. Judgment 5 WP148-2023.odt 12. The ‘criminal force’ is defined under Section 350 and ‘assault’ is defined under Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code. Having gone through the definitions of Sections 350 and 351 of the Indian Penal Code, it is evident that mere wordy altercation is not an ‘assault’ or hurling of abuse is neither a gesture nor preparation to indicate the use of criminal force. For criminal force, considering the illustrations given under Section 350 of the Indian Penal Code, causing of motion, change of motion or cessation of motion is sine qua non, which is absent in the present matter. Thus, the allegations made in the First Information Report do not constitute an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as prerequisite namely ‘assault’ or ‘criminal force’ is missing. 13. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the application preferred by the applicant for altering the charge. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. ( ANIL S. KILOR, J ) RRaut..