Alleged prevention of a mother from retrieving her child may constitute wrongful restraint.

The petitioners sought to quash FIR No. 54/2024, the charge sheet, the order taking cognizance, and the proceedings in C.C. No. 914/2024 for alleged offences under Sections 448 and 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC

The complaint alleged that the petitioners entered the complainant’s house, where the complainant’s mother offered them milk, and later one petitioner attempted to take the child while the other prevented the mother from retrieving the child

Although the complaint referred to an alleged attempt to take the child, the charge sheet was filed for trespass and wrongful restraint, not kidnapping

The petitioners contended that they had permission to enter and that the charge-sheet materials did not establish wrongful restraint

1. Whether the proceedings for trespass under Section 448 IPC could be quashed where the petitioners allegedly entered the house with the occupants’ permission.

2. Whether the complaint and charge-sheet materials disclosed a prima facie case of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, warranting continuation of the proceedings.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as recast under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The alleged offences were Sections 448 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court’s reasoning was that the petitioners’ initially permitted entry could not, on the allegations, itself be treated as trespass; however, an allegation that one petitioner prevented the complainant’s mother from taking custody of the child could, if proved, constitute an offence.

Whether the incident occurred was a matter for trial.

The Court distinguished the petitioners’ entry into the house from the alleged events that followed. Because the occupants had apparently welcomed the petitioners and offered them milk, the entry could not be construed as trespass on the material before the Court.

However, the allegation that one petitioner prevented the complainant’s mother from retrieving the child held by the other petitioner disclosed conduct that could amount to wrongful restraint if proved.

The Court held that the truth of that allegation was for trial and rejected the argument that the prosecution was untenable merely because it relied principally on the mother’s statement; the quality, rather than the volume, of evidence mattered.

It clarified that its observations should not be treated as findings on the merits of the defence and kept all contentions open.