IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.832 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. MURALI S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. VENKATESH S/O MURALI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 3. GIRISHA S/O MURALI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 4. SOUBAGYAMMA W/O MURULI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 5. VEDAVATHI D/O MURULI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 6. JAYAMMA D/O MURULI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 7. LAKKAMMA W/O CHITTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ALL R/AT D.M.KURKI, GOLLARAHATTI, KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARISEKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
(BY SRI: SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SHEKARAPPA S/O NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.M.KURKI, GOLLARAHATTI, KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARISEKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
... PETITIONERS 2. STATE BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER RURAL POLICE STATION, ARISEKERE, HASSAN DIST-573201. REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R2 SRI: JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R1-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT REGISTERED AS PCR NO.111/11 BY THE PRL.C.J. AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the private complaint registered against them as PCR.No.111/11 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is absent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1, at the first instance, had lodged a complaint in respect of the incident that had taken place on 19.12.2011. In the said complaint, he did not make any allegations of personal assault on him by any one of the petitioners. On the other hand, the grievance made in the said complaint was that when the lineman had come to his property to erect electric poles, Murali s/o. Thimmaiah and his son Venkata, his brother Girish, his wife Sowbhagyamma and their children Vedavathi and Jayamma and one Lakkamma picked up quarrel with her.
3. Based on this complaint, an endorsement was issued to the first respondent in NCR.No.143/2011. Thereafter, in order to implicate the petitioners in the very same incident, first respondent filed a private complaint and along with the said private complaint, he produced a complaint said to have been filed before the Police on 30.12.2011. Copy of the alleged complaint was not produced along with the private complaint indicating that such a complaint was not submitted before the police at any time. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the private complaint, even if it is accepted on its face value, it does not make out any of the offences alleged against the petitioners and hence, initiation of criminal action against the petitioners is illegal and an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed at the hands of this court.
4. Learned SPP-II, however, has argued in support of the allegations made against the petitioners contending that the said allegations prima facie disclose commission of criminal offences charged against the petitioners.
5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. The complaint which is alleged to have been lodged by the respondent No.1 before the Police was not marked during the sworn statement of the complainant, as such, there was no material before the trial court in support of the allegations made against the petitioners. In his sworn statement, complainant/respondent No.1 has stated that on 19.12.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., when the KEB lineman came near his house to erect electric polls in the vacant land, all the accused persons assaulted the complainant with hands and issued threats to him. These allegations are conspicuously absent in the complaint lodged by him at the earliest instance based on which endorsement was issued to the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that the allegations of assault and abuse levelled against the petitioners are manifestly an after thought and are calculated to foist a false case against the petitioners.
6. Sworn statement of the complainant does not disclose commission of any offence much less offence under sections 323 or 506 of Indian Penal Code. In the said circumstances, there was absolutely no basis for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 504, 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. According to the complainant, the lineman had come near his house to erect the electric poles in the vacant land. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the petitioners herein had trespassed into his land. Therefore, there was no basis whatsoever to take cognizance of the offences under sections 448, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The complainant has not narrated the names of the petitioners and has not disclosed the overt acts committed by the petitioners, as a result, the prosecution of the petitioners has turned out to be an abuse of the process of Court.
7. On going through the order passed by the learned Magistrate, I am of the view that learned Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the material on record before issuing summons to the petitioners and hence, the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the alleged offences being illegal and contrary to the material on record, cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners arising out of PCR.No.111/11 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss