ORAL ORDER

The petitioner – accused No.1 is before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.373/2024, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, for the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 341 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and remains unrepresented.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

Petitioner is accused No.1 and respondent No.2, the complainant. It transpires that, between the petitioner and respondent No.2 a civil suit in O.S.No.496/2023 is pending consideration and the petitioner has the benefit of an order of injunction granted by the concerned civil Court on 27.11.2023. After the grant of injunction, it transpires that respondent No.2 – complainant registers a complaint in Crime No.7/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015, making several allegations against the petitioner. Respondent No.1 – police, after investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioner, not for the aforesaid offences, but for the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC, dropping every one of the other offences. It is this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is not even an ingredient of the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC. It is to wreck vengeance against the petitioner for having secured an order of injunction against respondent No.2, the criminal law is set into motion and therefore, he would submit that in the absence of any ingredient, further proceedings must not be permitted to be continued.

5. As observed hereinafter, respondent No.2 - complainant though served remains unrepresented.

6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in contending that the charge sheet has been filed by the police after investigation. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial and this Court in excise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not interfere with the findings made in the charge sheet and leave it open to the petitioner to avail of such remedy as is available in law.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A suit between the parties being subsisting is a matter of record. On 27.11.2023, the concerned Court grants an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner, which does not go well with the complainant and seeks to register a complaint, for plethora of offences as afore-quoted. The police registered a crime in Crime No.7/2024 for the said offences. The police conduct investigation and the product of investigation as found in column No.17, which reads as follows:

A perusal at the charge sheet would indicate that the offences initially alleged were all bald and did not have any substance in it. What remain are the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

9. Section 341 of the IPC deals with wrongful restraint. Wrongful restraint is defined in Section 339 of the IPC. For an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. The ingredients as found in Section 339 of the IPC is required to be present to constitute the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. Section 339 of the IPC reads 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.

Exception.—The obstruction of a private way over land or water w