The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 393 of 2011 of

Thirurangadi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341

and 323 of IPC. The petitioner is working as Junior Consultant in

Government Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thirurangady since 2005.

The second respondent claims to be a dumb came to the hospital on

10.08.2011 while the petitioner was on duty and insisted him to certify

his disability for applying for a free pass in stage carriage. Since the

second respondent failed to produce the disability certificate issued by

the Medical Board, the petitioner expressed his inability to issue the

certificate. The second respondent left the hospital after creating a

commotion. Thereafter, on 12.08.2011, the second respondent filed

Annexure A complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thirurangadi

alleging assault by the petitioner. In the complaint, it is alleged that on

10.08.2011, the second respondent approached the petitioner for

disability certificate and he was required to be present on the next day.

It is further alleged that the second respondent met the Superintendent

and complained; but he did not take any action and gave a slip to be

given to the petitioner. The second respondent again tried to meet the

petitioner at out patient ward; but he left to the staff room at 1 p.m.

While the petitioner was sitting in the staff room, the second respondent

again met him and showed the slip of the Superintendent. Then the

-3-

second respondent obstructed and the petitioner pushed him and fisted

on his stomach. The police has filed Annexure B final report before the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi.

2. Heard both sides.

3. According to the petitioner, the allegation in the complaint as

well as the final charge is incorrect. The learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the allegation in Annexure B does not

constitute an offence under Section 341 IPC. In this connection, it is

pertinent to examine Section 339 of IPC, which reads thus:

S.339. 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.

The petitioner has produced Annexure A complaint, in which it is stated

that the second respondent himself has obstructed the petitioner and

then he pushed down and went from the alleged place of occurrence. In

Annexure B final report, there is no whisper regarding the wrongful

restraint on the part of the petitioner. So, the ingredients as

contemplated under Sections 339 and 341 of IPC is not attracted in this

case. The petitioner is also charge-sheeted under 323 of IPC. As per

Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, no police officer shall investigate a non-

cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try

such case or commit the case for trial. Since Section 323 of IPC is a

non-cognizable offence, as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the police is

-4-

entitled to investigate the same pursuant to an order of a competent

Magistrate. Here, no such permission is obtained by the Police Officer

under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

Considering the aspects as stated above, I find that the cognizance

taken against the petitioner under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC is not

maintainable. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed quashing Annexure B

final report in Crime No. 393 of 2011 and all further proceedings in

C.C.No. 1176 of 2011 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-I, Parappanangadi.

sd/-

ANNIE JOHN,

JUDGE.

Rv

-5-