LexKEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA AND ORS. versus MEHERVAN RUSTOM IRANI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ [2009] 9 S.C.R. 183 KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA AND ORS. v. MEHERVAN RUSTOM IRANI AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 2009) MAY 13, 2009 [S.S. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Complaint petition alleging criminal offence of causing wrongful restraint! obstruction - A/legation that construction/tarring of road by C appellant no. 6 at the instigation of appellants nos. 1 to 5 caused difficulties to respondent no. 1 and his parents in ingress and egress to and from their house - Appellant no. 6 was an architect while appellant nos. 1 to 5 were Managing Director and/or Directors of a company involved in legal D proceedings with City Municipal Corporation and respondent no.1 - Trial Court took cognizance under s.341 rlw s.34 /PC and summoned the appellants - Application filed by appellants under s.482 CrPC - Dismissal of, by High Court - Propriety of - Held: Not proper- Appellants were not at the E site and did not carry out any work - No overt act or physical -~ obstruction on their part has been attributed - Only because legal proceedings were pending between the Company and City Municipal Corporation and/or with respondent no. 1, same would not by itself mean that appellants were in any way concerned with commission of criminal offence of causing obstructions to respondent no. 1 and his parents - Managing Director and Directors of the Company should not have been summoned only because some a/legations were made against the Company - High Court failed to consider the fact 1 that in a case of this nature the appellants would face harassment although the allegations, even assuming to be correct were trivial in nature - Order summoning the appellants accordingly quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - s.339 183 F G. H 184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. A and s.341 rlw s.34.· Words and Phrases - 'Wrongful restraint' and 'voluntary' - Meaning of- In context to ss.339 and 341 !PC. Respondent no.1 filed complaint petition alleging that B construction/tarring of road done by appellant no.6 at the instigation of appellants nos.1 to 5 caused difficulties to him and his parents in ingress and egress to and 'from their house. Appellant ho.6 was an architect while appellant nos.1 to 5 were Managing Director and/or C Directors of a company involved in legal proceedings with City Municipal Corporation and respc;mdent no.1. The trial court took cognizance under s.341 r/w s.34 IPC and· summoned the appellants. Appellants filed application under s.482 CrPC which was dismissed by the D High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD :1. Section 341 IPC provides that whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with E simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Wrongful restraint has been defined under section 339 IPC, the essential ingredients of which are: (1) Accused obstructs voluntarily; (2) The victim is F prevented from proceeding in any direction; (3) Such victim has every right to proceed in that direction. 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 G should be a physical one. They should have common intention to cause obstruction. [Paras 11 and 12] ,[190-G- H; 191-A-E] 2.1. In the present ca$e, the appellants were not at H the site. They did not carry out any work. No overt act or - ... KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA AND ORS. v. MEHERVAN 185 RUSTOM IRANI AND ANR. physical obstruction on their part has been attributed. A OnJy because legal proceedings were pending between the Company and the Bombay Municipal Corporation and/or with the first respondent, the same would not by itself mean that appellants were in any way concerned with commission of a criminal offence of causing B obstructions to the first respondent and his parents. Noticeably despite the said road being under construction, the first respondent went to the Police Station thrice. He, therefore, was not obstructed from going to Police Station. In fact, a firm action had been c taken by the authorities. The workers were asked not to do any work on the road. One, therefore, fails to appreciate that how, in a situation of this nature, the Managing Director and the Directors of the Company as also the Archi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.