BHARAT KISHORMAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.

(2.) The Petitioner No.1 and 2 are the landlords and Petitioner No.3 is their employee. Respondent No.2 is son of the original tenant. The Respondent No.2 claims that he was carrying on his business in shop No.8. On 06.02.2009 he was present in his shop along with his employees since 9 a.m. On that day whenever his customers came there to purchase goods from his shop, they were not allowed to enter from the main gate with their bycycles, three wheelers, tempo etc. None of them were allowed to take their vehicle inside. Similarly, the vehicles of Godrej Vegetable Oil Company and of Virchand Khemaji came there with the goods to be unloaded at the godown of the Respondent No.2. Those vehicles were also not allowed to enter inside the compound. The gate was chained in such a manner the vehicles could not enter into the compound. On enquiry by the Respondent No.2, care taker watchman Kiran Kamble, who is the Petitioner No.3, informed that his employers Bharat Shah and Hemant Mehta i.e. Petitioner No.1 and 2 had directed him not to allow any vehicles inside. On the ground of these facts, the Respondent No.2 lodged a report with the Police Station on 06.02.2009. Kalachowki Police Station registered the Crime No. 28 of 2009 under section 341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners. By this Petition, the Petitioners seek to quash the said FIR on the ground that no offence under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

(3.) Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code defines wrongful restraint thus: