Running Away from Police Cannot Be Criminal Force, Karnataka HC Quashes Section 353 IPC Charge Sheet

Karnataka High Court quashes a Section 353 IPC charge sheet, holding that fleeing from police asking for vehicle documents cannot constitute criminal force against a public servant.

The High Court of Karnataka, sitting at Bengaluru, has quashed a criminal case against a 24-year-old accused charged with assaulting police officers on night patrol duty. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting singly, found that the core allegation — that the petitioner ran away when police stopped him and asked for vehicle documents at 2.00 a.m. — could not, even on its own terms, satisfy the ingredients of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found the charge sheet internally contradicted by the wound certificate attached to it, and held that treating flight from police as use of criminal force would be a textbook illustration of abuse of process.

The Incident and the Case Before the Court

The events that gave rise to the prosecution took place on 15 December 2023. Constable Siddhalingesh (PC No. 14063) of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station was on night patrol duty in Bengaluru along with another officer. At around 1.30 a.m., near a layout in Kasturinagar, the officers spotted two individuals moving suspiciously and stopped them. When the officers asked the occupants of a two-wheeler — identified as Goutham Raj S.M. (accused No. 2) and another person — to produce vehicle documents, neither complied. The officers then decided to escort the two to the police station.

According to the complaint, while being brought towards the main road near a factory, both accused jumped off the motorcycles, and one of them struck the complainant constable on the left side of his head with a stone, causing a bleeding injury. The second accused allegedly pushed and punched the other officer. Both then fled. A complaint was registered on 15 December 2023 itself, and the police investigated their own complaint, ultimately filing a charge sheet in CC No. 59097 of 2024 before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 332, 353 and 34 of the IPC.

Goutham Raj S.M., accused No. 2, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) seeking to quash the charge sheet in so far as it concerned him.

The Contradiction Between the Complaint and the Wound Certificate

Justice Nagaprasanna examined both the complaint and the wound certificate appended to the charge sheet with care. The complaint clearly identified the two accused by name and narrated that the assault occurred when the accused were being escorted by the police officers. The wound certificate, however, described the injuries as having been sustained during an attempt to catch an unknown suspect.

The court noticed a fundamental inconsistency: the wound certificate referred to injuries caused “by unknown persons while trying to catch the suspect,” yet by the time the wound certificate was recorded, the accused had already been identified in the complaint and a crime number had been registered. The court put the problem plainly — whether the complaint came first or the wound certificate came first “is a mystery.”

This internal contradiction was treated as a significant indicator that the prosecution case was not reliable, but the court's decisive reasoning went further and addressed the legal ingredients of the offence itself.

Why Section 353 IPC Could Not Be Attracted

Section 353 of the IPC punishes a person who assaults or uses criminal force against a public servant to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging official duty. The court emphasised that the offence's foundation necessarily lies in the ingredients of Section 351 IPC, which defines assault as a gesture or preparation intending to cause apprehension of criminal force.

On the facts as alleged, the court found no allegation of use of criminal force by the petitioner specifically. The case against Goutham Raj S.M. as accused No. 2 amounted, at its highest, to refusing to produce vehicle documents and then running away when the police tried to detain him. The court stated the position directly: the allegation against the petitioner was that he ran away when the police wanted to stop him. There was no allegation of an assault or application of criminal force attributed specifically to him in a manner that could sustain a Section 353 charge.

The court then set out the precise legal consequence: “If running away is usage of criminal force against a public servant, there cannot be a better illustration of abuse of the process of the law.” That formulation captured the court's finding that permitting the trial to continue on this basis would itself be an abuse of court process.

Application of the Bhajan Lal Framework

Justice Nagaprasanna referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335, which catalogues the categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Relevant categories from that judgment include cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused, and where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could conclude there is sufficient ground to proceed.

The court held that even accepting the ingredients of the charge sheet as true, they would not amount to an offence under Section 353 of the IPC against the petitioner. The prosecution case, as constructed, could not survive the Bhajan Lal test at the threshold stage itself.

The State, represented by Smt Deepthi Alva, High Court Government Pleader, had urged that the petitioner assaulted the policemen and that the trial should be allowed to proceed so the petitioner could establish his innocence. The court rejected that submission, finding that the jurisdictional preconditions for Section 353 were simply absent on the face of the charge sheet.

Outcome

The Criminal Petition was allowed on 22 July 2026. The proceedings in CC No. 59097 of 2024, pending on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, were quashed in so far as the petitioner, Goutham Raj S.M., was concerned. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 was also disposed of as a consequence.