In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that mere shouting and threatening do not constitute “assault” under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court quashed criminal proceedings against K. Dhananjay, a former employee of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics (IIA), who was accused of assaulting staff members at the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) office in Bangalore.
Case Background
The case, titled K. Dhananjay vs. Cabinet Secretary & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5905/2022]), stems from an altercation at the CAT office, Bangalore, in 2019. Dhananjay, dismissed from the IIA, had filed a petition before the CAT seeking redress for his dismissal. While inspecting documents provided in compliance with an order from the Central Information Commission (CIC), he allegedly engaged in a verbal confrontation with CAT officials.
According to the complaint filed by Ms. A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar of CAT, Dhananjay demanded documents beyond the scope of the CIC order and, upon refusal, began shouting and threatening the officials present. This led to an FIR registered under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC at Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore.
Key Legal Issues
The central legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court was whether Dhananjay’s conduct, as described in the complaint, constituted “assault” under Section 353 IPC. The section specifically deals with the use of criminal force or gestures that instill a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm to a public servant during duty.
The court noted that assault, as defined under the IPC, requires a physical act or gesture that induces fear of imminent use of criminal force. Dhananjay’s actions, as per the complaint, were limited to verbal aggression.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
The bench, consisting of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, observed:
“On perusing the complaint, we find that none of the ingredients mentioned in Section 353 IPC are reflected. In other words, no offence under Section 353 is made out in this case. The High Court, to our mind, has committed a mistake in not interfering in this case. This is a case which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”
The court concluded that shouting or threatening alone, without any physical action or intent to use criminal force, does not satisfy the legal criteria for assault under Section 353 IPC.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings against Dhananjay. It termed the continuation of such proceedings as “an abuse of the process of law.”
