Nutan D. Sardessai, J.

Heard Shri S.G. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners who contended on inviting attention to the FIR that Section 341 IPC alone was a cognisable offence unlike the other offences being non-cognisable in nature. The complaint did not at all disclose the offence of wrongful confinement and therefore it was a fit case to quash and set aside the FIR No.62/2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. He placed reliance in Shripad Kulkarni and others v. State of Goa and another (Criminal Writ Petition No. 80/2013) and Joao C. Pereira and another v. State of Goa and others (CDJ 2016 BHC 607) to substantiate his case. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 contended that the investigation revealed that the CCTV footage to which a reference was made in the complaint did not give any details except the arrival of the car in question. The inmates of the house too were not forthcoming on the incident and hence left the matter to the Court for appropriate orders.

2. Shri S.G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.3 contended that the complainant was restrained within the car on a reading of the complaint and submitted that the offence under Section 339 IPC of wrongful restraint was amply made out and there was no reason to quash the FIR. There was a duty cast on the Police to register an FIR and in which context he relied in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others ((2014) 2 SCC 1); Prashant Jhunjhunwala v. Union Territory of Daman and Diu (2009 (3) BCR (Cri) 116); Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999(3) SCC 259); T.Vengama Naidu v. T. Dora Swamy Naidu and Ors. ((2007) 12 SCC 93), Nazeem A.K. and others v. State of Goa (Criminal Writ Petition No. 22/2015) and submitted that the judgment passed by this Court in Shripad Kulkarni (supra) was clearly distinguishable. The relations between the parties were otherwise strained and considering the overwhelming material on record, there was no reason to quash the FIR and the petition had to be dismissed.

3. The petitioners had filed the complaint to the respondent no.2 to the effect that the respondents had come to attack her and wrongfully restrained her apart from trying to molest her. The incident had taken place outside her residence while she was parking her car when the named persons came running towards her car with an intention to attack her. They then started banging her car windows and car windshield. At that time she requested them to talk to her and explain the matter. However, the said named persons forcefully banged the car door on her shoulder. They had used abusive words and gave bad words to her. At that time they banged the car door on her shoulder and her mother who came to save her was also grievously hurt as the car-door hit her leg. This incident as per her version took place between 19.30 to 20.00 hours and was recorded in the CCTV Camera which belonged to the said persons. The entire incident was witnessed by her mother and her friend who was present in the house. There was no singular dispute that there were civil proceedings between the parties and their relations inter se was strained. Besides the eviction proceedings were filed against the respondent no.3 and her family under the Goa Building Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1968. It is therefore to be seen in the backdrop of these facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court whether a case has been made out for quashing the FIR particularly under Section 341 IPC.

4. Section 339 IPC which is the only offence being cognisable reads thus:

"Section 339 - Wrongful restraint - Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Exception – The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in