IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.41310 OF 2019(GM-RES) Between:
Mr. Munavvar C.H. S/o Musthafa C.H Aged about 25 years Permanently residing at Cholasseri House Vattallor, Vattalur P.O Cherukulamba Kuruva Vattalur, Malappuram Kerala – 676 507 Permanently residing at No.03, 8th Cross, ITI Layout, Near Shekaran Hospital Hospalya, Bengaluru – 560 068 (By Smt. Champoo Kavya S., Advocate for Dr. M. Sunil Sastry, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Bandepalaya Police Station Bengaluru, Sector 3, HSR Layout, Bengaluru Karnataka – 560 102 …Petitioner Represented by its Police Inspector 2. Ms. Ho Lih Fang Alias Sephora Ho D/o Ho Chi Hsiung Aged about 26 years Presently R/a Flat No.203 Gitanjali Corner 1st Cross Road HAL 3rd Stage Bhoomi Reddy Colony New Tippasandra Bengaluru – 560 075 3. Mr. Arjun S/o Sudhakar Aged about 27 years R/at No.56, Ground Floor M.J. Nagar, Choodasandra Bengaluru – 560 067 4. Mr. Sourav Das S/o Mahapathra Aged about 31 years R/a AK Residency, Flat No.101 8th Cross, Mangammana Palya Bengaluru – 560 068 (By Smt. K.P. Yashodha, HCGP for R1) ...Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying to allow the petition and quash complaint dated 14.08.2019 and FIR bearing No.150/2019 dated 14.08.2019 pending on the files of the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and complaint filed by the respondent No.1 dated 14.08.2019 at Annexures-A and B and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for quashment of complaint dated 14.08.2019 and FIR No.150/2019 dated 14.08.2019 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. When Ho Lih Fang Sephora Ho was driving a vehicle under intoxication in a haphazard manner, the police intercepted her. At this juncture, the petitioner is stated to have intervened and abused the police saying that police people cannot harass women etc,. There are serious allegations made against the petitioner that he has intervened the police while discharging their duty, which warrants prima facie offence committed by him as stated in the FIR read with complaint. The petitioner has not made out a case. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie offences have been alleged against the petitioner and others. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial. At the inception stage, it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of petitioner. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceedings shall not be interdicted.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-