The Bombay High Court has cleared three lawyers of charges in a 17-year-old criminal case, stating that simply restraining an official does not constitute an offense under Section 353 of the IPC.
The Bombay High Court approved a Discharge Application from three lawyers involved in a 17-year-old criminal case. The court noted that simply restraining an official does not constitute an offense under Section 353 of the IPC. It also described the situation as a clear example of misuse of authority by CBI officers and staff. The Criminal Revision Application was filed to contest the Additional Sessions Judge’s decision to reject the Discharge Application from the applicants. Among the three accused, two are practicing lawyers, and the third was a law intern with the first applicant at the time of the incident; he is now a practicing advocate.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav, on the Single-Judge Bench, stated that the police acted blindly under the CBI’s influence by arresting the applicants without considering the relevance of Section 353 IPC. Advocate Meenal Chandnani represented the applicants, while APP Manisha Tidke represented the respondent. The FIR against the applicants was filed in 2007 under Section 353 along with Section 34 of the IPC, based on a complaint from a police inspector. The complaint alleged that during a lawful search by the CBI at a company office in Vakola, three individuals (the applicants) entered without permission. The inspector told them to leave, but they refused and obstructed the CBI officers from continuing their search.
Police Officers spoke with the Applicants, who stated they were legal advisors for the Company’s owner and were there at her request. The Applicants were then taken to the Police Station, where they were arrested for allegedly trying to obstruct a government search operation. The police recorded statements from four CBI Officers, in addition to the complainant. The Applicants were released on bail the next day. A charge sheet was filed in 2008. It was noted in court that the trial has not started even after 17 years, and the prosecution has only recorded statements from the five CBI Officers. The Applicants argued that their Discharge Applications should be considered because the CBI falsely accused them to initiate criminal proceedings.
The Bench clarified that Section 353 IPC applies when someone obstructs a public servant by using criminal force to prevent them from doing their official duties. It was found that none of the statements from the prosecution witnesses contained evidence supporting the claims under Section 353 IPC. The Bench remarked that 17 years have passed since the incident, and the reputations of three Applicants, who are now professional Advocates, have been tarnished due to the accusations. It concluded that there is no evidence to charge the Applicants with obstructing the CBI Officers.
To apply Section 353 IPC, it must be shown that the Officer was lawfully performing his duty at the time of the alleged assault. The force or attack must be aimed at him. In this case, the interaction between the parties was simply a verbal exchange between the Applicants and the Police Inspector from the CBI. It is evident that the CBI Officer felt his ego was hurt when asked to present his identity card, which led to the complaint against the Applicants under Section 353 IPC. There is no evidence in the FIR or in the statements from the four CBI Officers recorded by the Investigating Officer to indicate any assault, criminal force, or obstruction during the 10-hour search. The Bench found no proof in the statements of the five CBI Officers that the Applicants used criminal force against them while they were performing their duties. Simply questioning an official does not constitute an offense under Section 353 IPC. The Bench stated that asking CBI Officers for their identity cards does not prevent them from doing their job. This was the sole incident leading to the charges against the Applicants. Applicant No. 1 was the Advocate for the concerned party, and Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 faced unnecessary repercussions for actions that were not their fault.
The Bench stated, “This is a clear example of misuse of authority by the CBI Officers and staff. Based on their own statements and the FIR filed, the complainant’s claims cannot be substantiated under Section 353 IPC. The prosecution cannot prove assault, criminal force, obstruction of a government servant, or hindering a search operation, as there are essentially no such allegations.” The Bench approved the Criminal Revision Application and ordered the Respondent-State to pay Rs 15,000 to each of the 3 Applicants as compensation for their 17 years of hardship.
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
