The central legal point established is that allegations of wrongful restraint and intimidation must meet the specific legal requirements under Section 341 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code to sustain criminal charges.

1. The petitioners prefer the instant Criminal Original Petition invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC seeking to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.35 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri. The petitioners case is that the above charge sheet came to be filed laying charges of offence under Section 341 and 506 (i) IPC against them, in pursuance of a false and malafide complaint dated 09.04.2010 preferred by the 2nd respondent namely Mr. K. Dharman, which came to be registered as Crime No. 152 of 2010 on the file of the 1st respondent police.

2. According to the petitioners the above complaint of 2nd respondent as well as the corresponding final report filed is patent illegality and sheer abuse of process of law, since the allegations leveled against them are obviously absurd and fanciful. Hence they seek for quashing the criminal proceedings thereto in C.C.No.35 of 2010.

3. The factual matrix involved in the case is that the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent defacto complainant are native of Jackanrai Village, Nilgiris District. The above complaint dated 09.04.2010 reveal to be preferred by the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioners herein who are the head of two village Panchayats at that relevant point of time in the year 2010, have prevented the co-villagers from participating in the funeral of the 2nd respondent s father who died on 21.03.2010. The sum and substance of allegation is that they prevented the villagers from attending the 2nd respondent s father s funeral ceremonies by intimidating with the threat of Ex-communication. Therefore the above complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent and on investigation the 1st respondent charge sheeted the above C.C.No.35 of 2010 under Section 341 and 506(i) IPC against the petitioners.

4. According to the petitioners, complaint on hand is an utter false and the same was lodged due to some previous enmity with the 2nd petitioner and with a malafide intention to harass the petitioners. They never involved in any misdeeds as averred in the complaint. In fact the 2nd respondent family members very often indulged in quarreling for petty matters with the co-villagers. They never obstructed or prevented any person from attending the funerals of the 2nd respondent father and the story is absolutely fanciful projected for the purpose of harassing the petitioners.

5. I heard Mr. L. Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Ramesh, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the 1st respondent, and there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent and perused the entire records.

6. For better appreciation of the case on hand this Court hereunder extracts the relevant Sections of IPC:

“Section 341 - Punishment for wrongful restraint-Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

7. Therefore to hold a person guilty and convict to undergo a punishment under section 341 of IPC, he should have committed an offence of Wrongful restraint, which is defined under section 339 of IPC, running as follows:

“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.

8. From the reading of above provisions, it is needless for this Court to say that to attract an offence under Section 341 there should be a wrongful restraint. Such restraint may be an obstruction or prevention of a person from proceeding any direction in which that person has right to proceed.

9. Now coming to the case on hand, this Court find that excepting an averment that the petitioners verbally by instructions/intimidations have prevented the co-villagers from attending the funerals of the 2nd respondent father, there is no averment