Introduction:

• Context: Criminal Revision Application No. 559 of 2024 filed against the rejection of a discharge application.
• Core Issue: Allegation under Section 353 r/w Section 34 IPC for obstructing CBI officers during an official search in 2007.
• Appellants: Advocates (Applicants No. 1 and 2) and a law intern (Applicant No. 3).

Incident Details:

1. Initial Complaint:

   • CBI conducted a search at a client's office with a warrant.
   • Advocates visited at the client's request after 10 hours of the ongoing raid.
   • Allegations arose after the advocates questioned the identity of CBI officers.

2. FIR and Arrest:

   • Complaint filed under Section 353 r/w 34 IPC alleging obstruction of public duties.
   • Applicants arrested, released on bail the following day.

Legal Journey:

1. Prosecution's Narrative:

   • Claims of obstruction when applicants requested CBI officers' identity cards.
   • Prosecution based solely on statements by the five CBI personnel involved.

2. Defense's Arguments:

   • Lack of evidence for assault or obstruction.
   • Actions consistent with professional legal duties.
   • No disruption or halting of the search was proven.

Judicial Findings:

1. Analysis of Section 353 IPC:

   • The offense involves assault or criminal force deterring public servants from lawful duty.
   • Evidence provided did not substantiate obstruction or assault; mere exchange of words occurred.

2. Professional Conduct of Advocates:

   • Applicants’ presence at the scene aligned with their legal role.
   • Law enforcement agencies misused authority in retaliation for questioning identity.

Decision:

1. Order:

   • The discharge application was allowed.
   • FIR under Section 353 IPC quashed due to lack of prima facie evidence.

2. Costs Awarded:

   • Rs. 15,000 each to applicants for undue hardship endured over 17 years.
   • Recoverable from the complainant (CBI officer).

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Section 353 IPC: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from duty.
2. Section 34 IPC: Common intention in committing an offense.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Mere verbal exchanges or requests for identity verification do not constitute obstruction under Section 353 IPC.
• Professional conduct by advocates cannot be criminalized without credible evidence of intent to obstruct lawful duty.

Subjects:

Misuse of authority, Advocates' professional duties, Discharge application under IPC offenses.
Section 353 IPC, Legal profession, CBI, Abuse of law, Advocates' rights, Judicial scrutiny.