her father. Apart from saying so, none of the witnesses including the second respondent has stated in what way the official duty of second respondent was obstructed. Annexure-A, complaint preferred by the second respondent to the Sub Inspector and based on which case was registered does not even say that the official duty of the second respondent was obstructed or that petitioner intended to do so. Nor do the circumstances indicate that petitioner, by saying so intended to obstruct the official duty of second respondent. For, even as per the version of prosecution he was aggrieved by the alleged delay in not sanctioning his loan from the provident fund. According to the petitioner even applications preferred subsequent to his application were favourably considered. Viewed in the above circumstances I am not inclined to think that the offence under sec.353 of the IPC is even prima facie made out, since none of the witnesses has stated in what way the official duty of second respondent was obstructed they cannot be permitted to improve their version in the course of trial and make out a case. In the circumstance, proceeding against petitioner is to be terminated since it will be a wasteful exercise to proceed with the matter.
