Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 948 (KAR)

Kota Rohit v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-21

M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.33914/2021 for offences punishable under Ss. 341, 504, 509 and 279 of the IPC, pending before the 8th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, arising out of Crime No.200/2021. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition as projected by the prosecution are as follows: The petitioner and his wife on 22/9/2021 were travelling on Hebbal main road to reach Yelahanka. The petitioner takes a left turn from New BEL Road driving his car and moves at 80 feet road, at which point in time, a White Audi Car collided with the petitioner's car, which was trying to enter from 80 feet road from one of the cross roads. Altercations between the petitioner and the inmates of the Audi car happens, pursuant to which, respondent No.2 who was an inmate in the Audi car owned and driven by one Smt.Asha Parveen, one of the Officers of the Karnataka Administrative Service registers a complaint before the police on 23/9/2021, for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 504, 509 and 279 of the IPC. The police after investigation files a charge sheet under Sec. 341, 504, 509 and 279 of the IPC. It is the filing of the charge sheet that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri Murthy D. Naik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 4. Respondent No.2 though served, is unrepresented. 5. Sri Murthy D. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the registration of the crime is an act of highhandedness and clout of Smt.Asha Parveen, an Officer working as Assistant Commissioner for Rent Control at the relevant point in time. The entire incident that took place is because of the negligent driving of the Officer and due to which, a trivial incident is glorified by alleging falsehood only to harass the petitioner. A charge sheet is also filed by the police without even investigation of the matter in its true sense. The entire incident that took place is because of the negligent driving of the Officer and due to which, a trivial incident is glorified by alleging falsehood only to harass the petitioner. A charge sheet is also filed by the police without even investigation of the matter in its true sense. The necessary ingredients to allege such charge against the petitioner were totally lacking and it is his contention that the police in the police station have harassed the petitioner, abused by usage of filthy language, which could be captured only on a CCTV, which was not installed in the police station. 6. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that every police station is installed with CCTV and the contention of learned senior counsel is contrary to the facts. Insofar as the allegation of shoddy investigation, the learned High Court Government Pleader would again refute the submissions to contend that it is not a case where there is no investigation. The police have filed a charge sheet on thorough investigation and the petitioner has to come out clean in the trial. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The afore-quoted link in the chain are not in dispute. A complaint is registered by respondent No.2 - complainant, who was an inmate of the Audi car, which was owned and driven by Smt.Asha Parveen, an Officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint, it is extracted for the purpose of quick reference: A perusal at the complaint so registered by the first informant - respondent No.2 would indicate that he was an inmate in Audi car, which is owned by Smt. Asha Parveen and was being driven by her. It also narrates that some injuries were caused to him in the altercation between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. There is no iota of evidence collected by the police during investigation about any injury sustained by the complainant, an inmate or the driver of the Audi car, who was driving the vehicle. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. There is no iota of evidence collected by the police during investigation about any injury sustained by the complainant, an inmate or the driver of the Audi car, who was driving the vehicle. The summary of the charge sheet at column No.7 filed by the police after investigation reads as follows: A perusal at the complaint or the charge sheet would clearly indicate that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sec. 341, 504, 509 or 279 of the IPC are being absent. 9. Sec. 341 of the IPC reads as follows: "Sec. 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." Sec. 341 of the IPC has been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA V. MEHERVAN RUSTOM IRANI reported in (2009) 6 SCC 475 , wherein it has held as follows: "12. "Wrongful restraint" has been defined under Sec. 339 IPC in the following words: "339. 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. Exception.-The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this sec. ." The essential ingredients of the aforementioned provision are: (1) Accused obstructs voluntarily; (2) The victim is prevented from proceeding in any direction; (3) Such victim has every right to proceed in that direction. 13. Sec. 341 IPC provides that: "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. The word "voluntary" is significant. It connotes that obstruction should be direct. The obstructions must be a restriction on the normal movement of a person. It should be a physical one. They should have common intention to cause obstruction." Sec. 341 of the IPC deals with punishment for wrongful restraint, which has to have the ingredients of Sec. 339 of the IPC. It connotes that obstruction should be direct. The obstructions must be a restriction on the normal movement of a person. It should be a physical one. They should have common intention to cause obstruction." Sec. 341 of the IPC deals with punishment for wrongful restraint, which has to have the ingredients of Sec. 339 of the IPC. A perusal at the complaint or charge sheet nowhere indicates that the petitioner - accused has obstructed the complainant voluntarily or he was prevented to be proceeded in any direction or it should be an physical one, apart from it being a common intention for causing obstruction. Only a bald allegation of wrongful restraint cannot be an essential ingredient, that it would become punishable under Sec. 341 of the IPC. The allegation in the complaint, which has gone unrebutted is that, the driver of the Audi car was in an inebriated state. Therefore, imaginary allegations under Sec. 341 of the IPC is invoked against the petitioner ostensibly on the position that the driver of the car enjoyed. 10. Sec. 504 of the IPC makes an accused punishable, if he has indulged in an intentional insult, which intend to provoke breach of peace, Sec. 509 of the IPC deals with any word, gesture or act, intended to insult the modesty of a woman and Sec. 279 of the IPC deals with rash driving or riding on a public way. There is no allegation that the petitioner has intentionally insulted the complainant and such insult has resulted in breach of peace or any word, gesture or act, which intended to insult the modesty of a woman, as the matter of fact that the owner and driver of the Audi car, an Officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service has not registered the complaint, it is the inmate, who registers the complaint. Though, it is not a bar under law but nothing prevented the Officer from registering the complaint herself. 11. Finding no allegations against the petitioner both in the complaint or in the charge sheet, permitting further proceedings to continue would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice, that too, for the proceedings initiated by influential quarters of the Government. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.33914/2021 pending before the 8th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, stands quashed.