The absence of wrongful restraint in the complainant's statement does not support charges under Section 341 IPC, and lack of permission under Section 155(2) CrPC invalidates proceedings for Section 323 IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 10982 OF 2024 CRIME NO.805/2023 OF Peravoor Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1523 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,KUTHUPARAMBA PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

MELBIN MATHEW AGED 27 YEARS S/O MATHEW, UZHUTHUVAN HOUSE, PUTHALAM, KOLAYAD(PO), THALASSERY TALUKE, KANNUR (DIST), KERALA(ST)-, PIN – 670650.

BY ADV SHRI.P.SAJU RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENT S :

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 SHAKUNDAL A.C W/O RAVE ENDRANADHAN, THEJAS HOUSE, PUTHALAM, KOLAYAD(PO), THALASSERY TALUKE, KANNUR (DIST), KERALA(ST)-, PIN - 670650 BY ADV SHRI.MOHAMMED RAZALI K.A OTHER PRESENT:

SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C No.1523/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘ IPC ’).

2. The prosecution case is that on

01.09.2023 at about 9.30 p.m, the petitioner pushed aside CW1, leading to her fall into the ground and suffered hurt. It is stated that the petitioner was infuriated by the advice given by the brother of the defacto complainant and his friends not to drive the scooter at a tremendous speed when he was found driving it through the road in-front of the house of the defacto complainant’s brother.

3. The case has been registered by the Peravur Police on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant. After the completion of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Peravur, laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba.

4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that a false case has been foisted against him, and that none of the offences as alleged by the prosecution are attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. As already stated above, the final report filed in this case inculpates the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC . But it is pertinent to note that nowhere in the statement of the defacto complainant, has she got a case that the petitioner has wrongfully restrained her. Thus, the offence under Section 341 is apparently not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case.

The registration of F.I.R including Section 341 IPC was obviously not necessitated. As far as Section 323 is concerned, it is seen that the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station concerned has not obtained the permission under Section 155 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , from the jurisdictional Magistrate to register a case in respect of a non-cognizable offence, and to conduct investigation. Thus, the prosecution against the petitioner is prima facie unsustainable in law. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the F.I.R registered by the Peravur Police in Crime No.804/2023, a day before the F.I.R registered in this case, against the husband and brother of the defacto complainant, in connection with the physical assault upon the petitioner herein, at the same time and at the same place where the incident involved in this case took place. Thus, it is pointed out that the present case has been registered as a counter-blast to the aforesaid crime registered against the husband and the brother of the de facto complainant and their other associates. It appears that the proceedings against