IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI Crl.P. No.965/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Mohd Asim Raj s/o Mohd. Moutasin Raj Age about 29 years Occ: Private Service r/o of Ward No.1 1st Floor No.45 3 Cross, Kodeganhalli Main Road, Hoodi Road Bangalore-560048.
2. Naveed s/o Satar Khan Aged about 25 years r/o of Ward No.1 1st Floor No.45 3 cross, Kodeganhalli Main Road, Hoodi Road Bangalore-560048.
3. Modh Akram Tauseef s/o Modh Moutasin Raj Age about 27 years Occ: Private Service r/o of Ward No.1 1st Floor No.45 3 Cross, Kodeganhalli Main Road, Hoodi Road Bangalore-560048. … Petitioners (By Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka By its Police Inspector K R Puram Police Station Bangalore, represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bangalore-1.
2. Ruksar Sultan Aged about 22 years No.12, 2nd Main 3rd Cross, Near Gangamma Temple, MV Extension Hoskete, Bangalore Karnataka-01. ... Respondents (By Sri Vinayaka V S, HCGP) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying to quash the FIR in CR No.736/2017 dated 25.12.2017 on the file of the Krishnarajapuram Police Station for the offence U/S 354A, 504, 506, 323, 324 of IPC.
This petition is coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petition has sought for the following relief:
“Call for the records and allow this criminal petition by quashing the FIR in Crime No.736/2017 dated 25.12.2017 on the file of the Krishnarajpuram Police Station for offences under Section 354A, 504, 506, 323, 324 IPC (Addl. CMM, Bangalore in CC 59458/18), in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Having regard to the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, it is not appropriate to interfere in the matter for the reason that offences are triable. Supreme Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 847 held as under:
“9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.”
Court cannot entertain the petition in respect of heinous crime. Having regard to the aforesaid decision read with alleged offences in the present matter, it is not appropriate to interfere. Accordingly, petitioner has not made out a case.
In view of the above, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm