IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL. P. NO. 5852/2012 BETWEEN DR. RAVIPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O DR. THIMMANNA BHAT, DHANVANTHARI HOSPITAL, PUTTUR, D.K. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNA MOORTHY D., ADV.) AND 1. TOWN POLICE, PUTTUR, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE.
2. RAMESH RENJALA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O VENKAPPA GOWDA, RENJALA PADNOOR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R-1.
SRI. B. S. SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS PENDING TRIAL ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC., PUTTUR, D.K. IN C.C. No.1139/2012.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
2. The contents of the charge sheet reveal that, the allegations made by the complainant by name Ramesh Renjala against the petitioner are that, on 09.11.2011 he had taken treatment from the petitioner for Kidney Stone problem who is a doctor and the petitioner has not furnished the bill. Again on 18.11.2011 the complainant had been to the petitioner in demand of the bill. But instead of furnishing the bill, the petitioner abused the complainant in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences of killing the complainant. On 22.11.2011, once again the complainant approached the petitioner in demand of the bills. It is alleged that, on that day also, the petitioner abused the complainant in filthy language and necked out the complainant from the chambers and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences of killing him. On the said allegations, the police have registered a case under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 420 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. It appears, the trial Court has not taken-up the matter, in spite of the fact that, this court has not granted any stay order. Since five years, the matter is pending before the trial Court. It is unfortunate to state here that mere pendency of the petition before any court of law without there being order of stay of further proceedings of the trial Court, the trial Court should not lay its hands to stall the proceedings and it should proceed with the case in accordance with law.
3. The above factual aspects disclose that there is an allegation attracting the penal provisions under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 420 of IPC. Though according to the learned counsel, there is an alternative remedy to file appropriate petition before some other court or before the civil court for demand of bill, it will not debar the party from filing complaint for any criminal offence alleged to have been committed. When the allegations made attracting the penal provisions prima facie showing the commission of the offences, normally, the court shall not interfere with the proceedings of the trial Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
4. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the proceedings before the trial Court. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In view of disposal of this petition, IA No.1/2015 filed for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, IA No.1/2015 stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*