The High Court of Karnataka, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., dismissed a petition to quash an FIR registered in Crime No. 45/2019 for offences under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioners, a father and son, were accused of disrupting a preliminary inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Section of the Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax. The son was called for inquiry regarding a matrimonial dispute; he secretly recorded the proceedings on his mobile phone. When the officer took possession of the phone, the son threatened dire consequences, informed his father, who was present in the office without authorization, and both abused the officers, threatened them, and the father damaged office property.
The petitioners argued the complaint did not disclose the ingredients of the offences, the inquiry was conducted beyond office hours violating procedure, and the proceedings were an abuse of process at the instance of the son's wife. The State contended the complaint clearly narrated obstruction of public duty and threats.
The court held that at the stage of Section 482, it must only examine the contents of the complaint/FIR. Citing Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2018) 3 SCC 104, the court reiterated that if an FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence, the court must stay its hand and allow investigation. The court also referenced State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561 and State of Haryana v. Bajanlal. It concluded that whether Sections 353 and 504 are attracted is a matter for investigation, and the petitioners had not made out a case for quashing. The petition was dismissed.
