ORDER 1. An application has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, pointing out that while passing the order dated 22.07.2022, due to inadvertence, wrong case number (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition 2638/2022) has been mentioned, and the same ought to have been - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.191/2022. 2. Mr. Shukla pointed out that notwithstanding above referred discrepancy, the petitioner had submitted his representation according to the intent of the Court, which the Investigating Officer has considered. 3. For the reasons stated and after hearing Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, the application is allowed. 4. The order dated 22.07.2022, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2638/2022 shall be deemed to have been passed in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.191/2022. 5. Ordered accordingly. S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2638/2022 1. Instant petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, calls in question the FIR No.74/2022, dated 12.03.2022, which has been registered against the petitioner in P.S. Boranada, District Jodhpur City for the offences under Sections 323 & 341 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner navigated the Court through various photographs and argued that the FIR in question has been lodged not only vindictively but also in order to create a defence in relation to the FIR (No.75), which the petitioner’s wife has lodged against various persons of the colony including the complainant himself. 3. The matter was heard on a number of occasions and observations were made from time to time. 4. Mr. Shukla further argued that the FIR in question was lodged after more than 24 hours and has been registered reflecting wrong time and date. He highlighted that while registering the FIR (on 12.03.2022), the SHO concerned has written today, whereas the incident that was narrated was that of 11.03.2022. 5. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the screenshots of the CCTV camera and submitted that at the time of registration of FIR (7:53 pm of 12.03.2022), the complainant was present in the Arihant Adita township itself, which goes on to show that the FIR has been registered either ante dated or with a wrong mentioning of time/date. 6. Mr. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor informed that the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and has found the offences under Sections 323 & 341 of Indian Penal Code proved against the present petitioner. 7. 6. Mr. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor informed that the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and has found the offences under Sections 323 & 341 of Indian Penal Code proved against the present petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners expressed his surprise rather shock to hear that Investigating Officer has found a case under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code made out , whereas the basic ingredients of such offence are non existent. 8. So far as conclusion in relation to offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, suffice it to observe that the corresponding arguments are subservient to evidence and this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot go into the evidence in minute details, as attempted to by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant invited Court’s attention towards illustrations appended with Section 339 and 340 of the Indian Penal Code and argued that the petitioner’s act of stopping master Rajat from playing badminton amounts to wrongful restraint within the ambit of Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Adverting to the conclusion of the Investigating Officer in relation to offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes punishment for wrongful restraint, this Court is of the firm view that the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer is per-se contrary to facts and law. 11. In the opinion of this Court, on the basis of material available on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner(s) have ever tried to restrain the complainant or their children, let alone wrongfully confining them. 12. A perusal of the FIR reveals that there is not even a whisper about stopping, much less restraint or confinement. The Investigating Officer present in the Court said that Rajat in the statement has said that uncle (the petitioner herein) stopped him from playing Badminton, hence, he has deduced that offence under Section 341 of the IPC is proved against the petitioner. 13. Section 339 & 341 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus: "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. 341. 13. Section 339 & 341 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus: "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. 341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.-Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. " 14. It is evident from the definition of wrongful restraint that the obstruction must be coupled with the intention to prevent someone from moving in any direction in which the person has a right to move. The contents of the FIR reveal a mere scuffle between the children of the petitioner and complainant and resultant alleged assault by the petitioner on the complainant’s children. 15. In the face of these allegations, it cannot be said that there was any obstruction much less any intention to prevent movement in any direction. 16. In this view of the matter, the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer that "alleged offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner" is clearly contrary to the facts and law. 17. So far as contention in relation to offence purportedly made out under Section 323 is concerned, the petitioner shall be free to raise all his grounds before the competent Court at the time of taking cognizance or at the time of framing of charge. 18. With these observations the misc. petition stands disposed of. 19. Mr. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has not furnished requisite personal bond and surety bonds. 20. Mr. Shukla assures that the same shall be done within fifteen days from today. 21. The petitioner is directed to furnish personal bond(s) and surety bonds on or before 30.08.2022. 22. Stay petition also stands disposed of.