1. The short facts of this case appears to be that the respondent no. 1 filed private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari against the petitioner, who was at the relevant point of time, the Manager of Bank of India, Vijalpore Branch, and the petitioner was holding the post of Cashier In-charge of the Bank. The accusation in the complaint is that the petitioner had proceeded on leave and thereafter he wanted to assume the duty but the same was not permitted by the Manager of the Bank without production of the medical fitness certificate. As per the complainant, production of medical certificate was not required but the Manager insisted for such certificate and as stated in the complaint, he insisted under the instructions of the higher authority. Therefore, as per the complainant, he was wrongfully restrained, therefore, the offence under sec. 341 of IPC was committed by the petitioner -accused hence, the complaint was filed.

2. Learned Magistrate directed for holding the inquiry under sec. 202 of CrPC through police and the report thereafter was submitted before the learned Magistrate. After considering the report, the learned Magistrate found that prima-facie offence was not committed, therefore, he dismissed the complaint. The matter was carried in revision by the ori. Complainant respondent no. 1 herein before the learned Sessions Judge being Criminal Revision Application No. 41/1998 and the learned Sessions Judge ultimately, vide judgment and order dated 27.12.2001 had set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed to take cognizance of the offence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has, thereafter, issued process upon the complaint to the petitioner as accused. Under this circumstances, the present petition before this Court for quashing of the complaint under sec. 482 of CrPC.

Heard Mr. Pranav Mehta for Nanavati Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. J.B. Pardiwala learned advocate for respondent no. 1 and Mr. K.P. Raval learned APP for the State.

3. The allegation in the complaint is for the alleged offence under sec. 341 of IPC. Nowhere in the complaint it has been stated that the complainant was physically prevented from discharging the duties by the accused, which is one of the basic ingredients for the offence under sec. 341 of IPC. In the case of Keki Hormusji Gharda vs. Mehervan Rustom Irani and Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 2594, the Apex Court, after considering the provisions of sec. 339 of the IPC had, inter alia, observed in para-11, relevant of which, reads as under:

"The essential ingredients of the aforementioned provision are : (1) Accused obstructs voluntarily; (2) The victim is prevented from proceeding in any direction; (3) Such victim has every right to proceed in that direction." Thereafter, at para-12, it was observed that: "therefore, the obstructions must be a restriction on the normal movement of a person and it should be a physical one."

4. As recorded hereinabove, in the complaint, there is no accusation of physical obstruction created or that the accused physically restrained the complainant from discharging the duties. Hence, it can be said that the basic ingredients of the offence under sec. 341 of IPC were not satisfied.

The additional aspect in the present case it that it is not a matter where the alleged restraint is to prevent the normal physical movement of the complainant but to restrain him or to create obstruction in permitting him to resume his duties as the Cashier of the Bank. Such obstruction is stated to be created by the Manager of the Bank who is superior. The accusation made in the complaint goes to show that the Manager did not create any obstruction, but insisted for production of medical fitness certificate of the complainant which as per the complainant was not required. Whether the production of medical fitness certificate could be said as required or not as per the bye-parte settlement by the Bank with its employee or not is an e