In a significant ruling, the apex court recently dismissed criminal proceedings initiated against K Dhananjay, a former employee of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics (IIA), who had been accused of assaulting staff members at the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) office located in Bengaluru. The case originates from a disagreement at the CAT office in 2019.
Dhananjay, having been dismissed from the IIA, had filed a petition before CAT seeking resolution for his dismissal. While examining documents provided in accordance with an order from the Central Information Commission (CIC), he had, allegedly, engaged in a verbal confrontation with CAT officials.
According to the complaint filed by A Thomeena, deputy registrar of the CAT, Dhananjay demanded documents beyond the scope of the CIC order. Upon refusal, he began shouting and threatening the officials present. Thereafter, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of duty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Ulsoor Police Station in Bengaluru.
The central legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court was whether Dhananjay’s conduct, as described in the complaint, constituted “assault” under Section 353 of the IPC. The Section specifically deals with the use of criminal force or gestures that instil a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm to a public servant on duty. The apex court observed that assault, as per the IPC, necessitates a physical act or gesture that instils apprehension of the imminent application of criminal force. Dhananjay’s conduct, as outlined in the complaint, was confined to verbal aggression.
The bench, consisting of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, observed: “On perusing the complaint, we find that none of the ingredients mentioned in Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are reflected. In other words, no offense under Section 353 is made out in this case. The High Court, in our opinion, has made a mistake in not interfering in this case. This is a case that is nothing but an abuse of the process of law”.
The Court determined that mere shouting or threatening, devoid of any physical action or intention to employ criminal force, falls short of meeting the legal requirements for assault as defined under Section 353 of the IPC. The apex court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings against Dhananjay.
Last year, the Supreme Court had passed a similar judgment on Section 353 in a case in Kerala in which it held that the mere use of loud words against a public servant in a government office does not attract the offence of Section 353. The Court observed that the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 353 is that there must be assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his official duty. In this case, the Court found that there was no assault or use of criminal force and the use of loud words by the accused was not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 353.
In the case of Walmik vs State of Maharashtra, the accused was arrested for putting the gun on the head of the police officer on duty to prevent rioting that took place in an inauguration ceremony. The police made 17 arrests, but due to lack of proof, the Court had to acquit two of the 17 accused, but the appellant was the one who had pointed the gun on the police officer. Hence, he was convicted by the sessions judge for the offense under Sections 307 and 353 of the IPC.
However later, the High Court acquitted him of both the charges. For Section 307, the Court held that the accused held the gun, but did not open the fire hence, cannot be held guilty of the offense. Further, the accused had no ulterior motive to harm the police officer as they had not met before this incident. The Court reversed the conviction and said that the mere act of pointing a gun at the police personnel is not sufficient to punish the appellant.
Based on the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that the accused’s intent could not be substantiated, leading the courts to acquit the individual of the charges under Section 353.
It is a fundamental principle that every criminal act is accompanied by an intention, and in the absence of such intent, it cannot be legally construed as an offense under the IPC, thereby precluding the punishment of the accused.
—By Abhilash Kumar Singh and India Legal Bureau