ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner (accused) has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 354(B), 323, and

506 of the IPC and is before this Court seeking relief.

2. The prosecution alleges that on January 18, 2020, at about 9:20 p.m., while the de facto complainant and her son were proceeding toward her house, the accused wrongfully restrained, abused, and threatened her with dire consequences. It is alleged that he stated her husband was a witness in a Lokayukta case, pulled her hair, and, when her son intervened, threatened both of them by saying he would eliminate them by running them over with a car. Furthermore, he allegedly promised that by giving “supari” he would eliminate her husband and also assaulted the son on his face.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the allegations are accepted at face value, they do not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute the offences charged against the petitioner. He further stated that similar allegations were made by the wife of the accused in a complaint, and based on the statement made by the complainant’s husband, that complaint was closed by an endorsement confirming that the complainant’s husband had agreed not to interfere with the petitioner’s family.

4. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet material do disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. However, he contended that the veracity of these allegations can only be determined at trial, and thus they cannot be conclusively examined in this petition. Consequently, he argued that the present petition is not maintainable, since the trial is already at the stage of further examination of PW1, and accordingly sought dismissal of the petition.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.

6. The Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties.

7. After the trial commenced, the petitioner partially cross-examined PW1 (the complainant). Subsequently, this Court, by its order dated June 24, 2024, granted an interim order stating that the petitioner’s wife had registered a complaint against the present complainant, alleging offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, among others. Two months later, a similar allegation emerged in the impugned complaint. At first glance, the allegations appear to implicate offences under Section 354-B or Section 341 of the IPC, with the only witnesses being the complainant’s husband and son, and no other independent witnesses having been produced.

8. It is acknowledged that the incident took place in a public area and, according to the complaint, in full view of the public and the Hoysala police. However, the statements of any independent witnesses were neither recorded nor obtained by the Hoysala police.

9. To constitute the offence under Section 341 of the IPC, it must be established that a person voluntarily obstructs another from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner obstructed the complainant or her son from moving in any direction. Apart from an allegation of wrongful restraint, the essential elements required to establish an offence under Section

341 are conspicuously absent.

10. To constitute the offence under Section 354-B of the IPC, it must be shown that a man assaults or uses criminal force against any person with the specific intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked. In this instance, aside from the allegation that the petitioner pulled the complainant’s hair, there is no allegation that he assaulted her or used criminal force with the intent to disrobe or force her into nudity.

11. The petitioner is also being prosecuted und