There can be no charge under IPC sections 341 and 354D without clear evidence meeting the statutory requirements.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1292/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 354D of the IPC .

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 though served 3 years ago, has remained unrepresented. In that light, Sri. Rajayoga K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 are heard.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.07.2023 at about 6:30 p.m., respondent No.2 registers a complaint on the score that she was travelling on a bus from Madikeri to Bhagamandala on 10.07.2023, the petitioner, who was seated in the opposite seat of the complainant, when the seat gets vacated comes and sits next to the complainant. After sitting next to the complainant sought to enquire about personal details of the complainant, when he comes to know that the husband of the complainant is working in the Police Department, he introduces himself saying that he is also working in the Police Department, both of them get down from the bus and move towards their respective places. While so moving, it transpires that the petitioner asks for the mobile number of the complainant, the complainant furnishes the wrong mobile number. It is then the petitioner once follows the complainant to ask for the correct mobile number. This incident leads the complainant to register a complaint and the police after investigation file a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 354D of the IPC .

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no ingredient made out of both stalking and wrongful restraint, as obtaining in the aforesaid provisions, as the allegation is that the petitioner has followed the complainant only to a certain distance asking for a correct mobile number and that would not amount to stalking and the complainant was not restrained from movement and would not amount to the offence under wrongful restraint. He would seek quashment of the crime.

5. Learned HCGP would submit that the petitioner is a Police Constable. The complainant is the wife of his colleague another Police Constable. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner was undoubtedly incur the registration of a crime in the case at hand. He further submits that it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial. He seeks dismissal of the petition.

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

7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The entire issue has now triggered from the registration of the complaint. The complaint reads as follows

8. It is the case of the complainant that she travelled in a bus in which the petitioner was seated in the opposite seat and when the seat gets vacated comes and sits next to the complainant and introduces himself and gets into the personal details and asks the mobile number, when both of them get down from the bus, a wrong mobile number is given by the complainant is a matter of record. It is then the petitioner once has followed the complainant and sought for the correct mobile number. The statement rendered under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the complainant reads as follows

9. If the complaint and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. are read in tandem, what is indicative of the fact is that the complainant was no way restrained from movement to any corner and that which would undoubtedly not be the ingredient of Section 341 of the IPC . of the requires use of fo