P.M.VIMODH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Based on Ext.P1(6) complaint allegedly preferred by S. Binuraj, who is the 3rd respondent herein, the Sub Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Kozhikode City, to whom the complaint was forwarded as Crime No.0669/2016 of the Kozhikode Town Police Station, has registered Ext.P1 FIR against the petitioner herein as accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427, 294(b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The same is sought to be quashed.

(2.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu, the learned State Attorney Sri. K.V. Sohan for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel Sri. Sebastian Paul for the 3rd respondent.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the contents of Ext.P1(6). At the very out set, it has to be stated that Ext.P1(6) only contains some blurred allegations, which are not at all specific. In legal parlance, it cannot be said that Ext.P1 reveals any of the offences alleged. For inviting the offence under Section 341 I.P.C., there should be an allegation of wrongful restraint. The same has not been alleged in Ext.P1(6). In order to invite the offence under Section 323 IPC, there should be specific allegation as to the voluntarily causing of hurt by the accused concerned. Apart from the vague allegation that the 3rd respondent and other media persons were assaulted, there is no specific allegation to bring out the ingredients of the offence under Section 323 IPC.