IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7527/2018 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Christopher Stephen Ireland Aged about 60 years S/o Late E.O. Ireland No.200, “Happy Villa” Hope Farm, Whitefield Bangalore – 560 066.
2. Mrs. Amelia Ireland Aged about 55 years W/o Mr. Christopher Stephen Ireland No.200, “Happy Villa”
Hope Farm, Whitefield Bangalore – 560 066.
... Petitioners (By Dr. S. Arumugham, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka By the Whitefield Police Rep. by the SPP High Court of Karnataka Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Mr. Ian Patrick Ireland Aged about 71 years S/o Late E.O. Ireland No.200/1, “Happy Villa” Prashanth Layout Near Whitefield Bangalore – 560 066.
... Respondents (By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP for R1) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.4043/2018 for the offences taken cognizance under Section 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC on the file of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rural District, Bangalore and etc.
This petition coming for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Dr. S. Arumugham, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S. Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners who have been arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.4043/2018 registered by respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC which proceedings are pending on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, are before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
3. Respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint on 18.01.2018 before respondent No.1 alleging that petitioners herein had arrived near his house and abused him in filthy language and further held a threat that he would pierce the rod behind the back of complainant. It was also alleged by the complainant that accused persons proclaimed that property in which complainant is living belongs to them and if he (complainant) were continue to reside therein, he would have to face the consequences of it. Allegation of threat was not for the first time and due to repeated threat by accused persons, having no other option, complaint in question is said to have been lodged. Said complaint was registered in Cr.No.21/2018 against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 447 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, petitioners (accused) are before this Court contending that allegation made in the complaint are vague and an omnibus statement has been made. As such, order taking cognizance and consequential filing of charge sheet after completion of alleged investigation are based on improper facts and there is no truth in charge sheet material. Sri. S. Arumugham, learned counsel appearing for petitioners seeks for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.4043/2018 as such. He would also draw the attention of the Court to certain admission made by complainant before lower Court to contend that there is a civil dispute pending between parties and in RSA No.1590/2016, this Court was pleased to stay the operation of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.962/2013 in favour of respondent No.2. As such, to force the petitioners to settle the pending civil proceedings, a false complaint has been filed by them. Per contra, Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP would support the case of prosecution.
5. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and on perusal of charge sheet material, it discloses that though several allegations had been made by respondent No.2 against petitioners, on the basis of which a complaint came to be registered and investigation had been taken up, had resulted in charge sheet being filed against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. At the time of considering the prayer for quashing of proceedings the probable defence of the accused would not be the subject matter of scrutiny or consideration. If the allegation made in the complaint disclose the alleged offence and charge sheet material would prima facie establish that accused has to be proceeded with, this Court would not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings by analyzing the charge sheet material, that too, by a microscopic examination of charge sheet material as now pleaded. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to entertain this petition.
Accordingly, petition stands rejected.
Further, petitioners are at liberty to seek for discharge if so advised by filing proper application before the jurisdictional Court. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case.
In view of petition having been rejected, I.A.No.1/18 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, same stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE SN