CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.20653 of 2023 pending before the V Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of crime in Crime No.116 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Heard XXXXXXXXX, party-in-person for the petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Chiranjeevi K.R., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

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

3.1. The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. The petitioner is said to be the nephew of the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent had availed an overdraft facility in the name of his business M/s Tunga Agencies from Syndicate Bank, J.C. Road Branch on 16-08-1999 to the tune of ₹5,00,000/- by executing an agreement of hypothecation of certain goods and moneys receivable. The co-obligant was one Smt. Vishalamma, the mother of the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent is said to have closed down the business and not paid back the money i.e., the loan that was availed. Recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank on 27-01-2005 in O.S.No.733 of 2005 both against the borrower and the guarantor for recovery of a sum of about ₹6,00,000/-. Money is not paid despite the settlement arrived at by the parties before the Lok-Adalat then. 18 years passed by.

3.2. A communication is sent from J.C.Road Branch of Canara Bank, as Syndicate Bank had merged with Canara Bank, that an amount of ₹20,00,000/- is outstanding and has to clear the dues. The petitioner then approaches the Bank to take steps towards settlement of dues, at which point in time, the complainant and the mother of the petitioner, as also the petitioner, had some squabbles. A complaint comes to be registered before the jurisdictional police alleging that on 02-06-2023 at around 4 p.m. the 2^nd respondent who was on his motorcycle had been abused with filthy language, assaulted and was voluntarily restrained by use of criminal force. This becomes a crime in Crime No.116 of 2023. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner. The concerned Court then takes cognizance and registers C.C.No.20653 of 2023 against the petitioner. Registration of criminal case is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The petitioner who appeared in person would vehemently contend that there are serious inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant and at the time when the alleged incident took place, the petitioner was in the Canara Bank trying to sort out the manner in which the loan was to be cleared. He would submit that there is no offence that would become punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504 or 506 of the IPC. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/complainant would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The charge sheet clearly points out voluntary restraint by the petitioner of his uncle, the complainant. The reasons may be manifold. But, since charge sheet is filed, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial.

6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would also toe the lines of the complainant by seeking dismissal of the petition, on the score that the charge sheet records the statement of persons who were around and there is wound certificate also appended to the charge sheet.

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

8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The relationship between the parties is an admitted fact. The petitioner on 02-06-2023 is said to have restrained the complainant and also assaulted the complainant. The complainant then registers the complaint on 03-