The central legal point established in the judgment is that the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences must be present for the court to take cognizance of the case and proceed with the criminal proceedings.

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur in Sahar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2010 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under sections 341, 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a written report addressed to the Officer-in-charge of Sahar police station on 1.11.2010 alleging precisely therein, inter alia, that while he was on duty during election rally of Shri Lalu Prasad, the petitioner was moving in the crowd with a bag. When he was asked to show his bag, he got angry and when the petitioner was stated to go out of the field, he misbehaved and used inappropriate words. Thus, it was alleged that the act of the petitioner caused disturbance in the public duty. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, an F.I.R. vide Sahar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2010 dated 1.11.2010 was registered against the petitioner under sections 341, 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up.

4. On conclusion of investigation, the police submitted a report under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of the police report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 341, 353, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code vide order dated 15.01.2011. The said order dated 15.01.2011 is under challenge in the present application.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that from a bare perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R. it would transpire that none of the ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 341, 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code would be attracted against the petitioner. A general, vague and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner that he used inappropriate words and refused to abide by the dictates of the informant. It has further been contended that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner was carrying anything incriminating in the bag and to carry a bag at a public place, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to attract the ingredients of any offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It has further been contended that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and on enquiry made by the informant, he disclosed his identity but the informant got annoyed without any rhyme or reason and implicated the petitioner in a false and frivolous case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that even in course of investigation, no material could be collected against the petitioner and the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Arrah, before whom the police report was laid, has mechanically taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the State has contested the matter. He has submitted that on the relevant date and time of the occurrence, the informant was discharging public duty. He noticed that the petitioner was moving in the crowd with a bag and when he was asked to show his bag, he got angry and misbehaved with the informant. Such an act on the part of the petitioner would certainly attract the ingredients of Sections 341, 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under such circumstance no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In order to examine the issue involved in the present case, I would like to consider the relevant provisions of law under which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate.

8. Section 341 of the Penal Code prescribes punishment for wrongful restraint. The word wrongful restraint has been defined under section 339 of the Penal Code which reads thus:-

“339. Wrongful restraint