IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the cognizance of the Trial Court, finding sufficient prima facie evidence of assault and wrongful restraint against the petitioner, a police official.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner through Video Conferincing assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah and Mr. Rishav Kumar from the Court room, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.01.2020 passed in Cr. Revision No.469 of 2019, whereby, the learned Revisional Court has been pleased to affirm the order taking cognizance dated 01.10.2018 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.1587 of 2017, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant-opposite party no.2 married to accused no.1 Puja Kumari on 12.06.2012 as per Hindu customs. After two-three months of the marriage, everything was normal in their matrimonial relationship. Later on, she changed and often indulged in quarrel with the complainant. She used to threaten him by saying that her Mama is a Police Inspector and another one is an Advocate. It was further alleged that she will lodge a false dowry related case against him and his family and such estranged relation continued. They have a daughter out of the said wedlock, namely, Jagriti. She took her daughter and went to her parental home. The complainant tried to get their matrimonial relation normal. It was also alleged that in September, 2016, she lodged a false case of dowry harassment against the complainant and his parents in Ara, Bihar. A mediation sitting was held in Ara, Bihar on 20.09.2016, wherein, it was admitted by the accused no.1 and her family that no dowry was demanded. It was alleged that on 25.01.2017 at about 02:30 p.m., when the complainant was in his rented accommodation at Morhabadi, the accused no.2-petitioner came and started assaulting him. He caught hold of the complainant and took him in police jeep to Bariyatu Police Station. It was further alleged that the accused no.2 took away Rs.10,000/-from the house of the complainant. The complainant was detained in Station Hazat of Bariyatu Police Station and got an agreement executed on a sheet of paper wherein it agreed that the complainant shall pay Rs.7,500/-per month to the accused no.1. The complainant was let to go at 08:30 p.m. It was alleged that the accused nos. 1 and 2 have consistently been harassing the complainant both mentally and physically.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that in the solemn affirmation as well as deposition of enquiry witnesses, nothing specific has come about any assault or injury upon the complainant and in view of that, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , reported in 2023 SCC OnLineSC 1711. He refers paragraph 10 of the said judgment. On the same line, he further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. Sate of Uttar Pradesh and another , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC. He refers paragraph 21 of the said judgment. He further submits that so far as Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, that Section is also not attracted as there is no wrongful restraint by the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that the learned Revisional Court has erred in not quashing the order taking cognizance and in view of that, the said order and the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

5. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioner is the maternal uncle of the wife of opposite party no.2. He submits that the petitioner is behind the matrimonial dispute, who happened to be maternal uncle