IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8612/2015 BETWEEN:
1. N.S. SHIVA PRASAD, S/O. N.S.RAMANJINEYULU AGE 27 YEARS, R/O TANK BUND ROAD, WEST EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125.
2. SRI. RAMANJANEYULU, S/O. LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY, AGE 60 YEARS, R/O TANK BUND ROAD, WEST EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISTRICT-563 125.
3. SMT.DEVIKA RANI, W/O.N.S.RAMANJINEYULU, AGE 55 YEARS, R/O TANK BUND ROAD, WEST EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISTRICT-563125. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR P., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH CHINTAMANI TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-01.
2. SRI.VINOD KUMAR, S/O.JAYAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O TANK BUND ROAD, WEST EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO i)QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.04.2015 LODGED BY THE 2nd REPSONDENT HEREIN AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506,504,323 R/W 34 OF IPC. THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE PETITION AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned SPP- II for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented.
2. Perused the records.
3. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the proceedings are instituted against the petitioners solely as a counter blast to the complaint filed by them against respondent No.2 in crime No.148/2104. In the said proceedings, after trial, respondent No.2 has been convicted and the matter is pending consideration of the appellate Court. The instant complaint came to be lodged two days after the incident, which clearly indicates that respondent No.2 did not sustain any injury making it evident that the complainant has abused process of Court with a view to settle score against the petitioners and to seek vengeance against them.
4. Learned SPP-II for respondent No.1 argued in support of the impugned action contending that the material on record would clearly disclose the commission of the above offence. The accusation made against the petitioners is substantially made out and hence, there is no ground to quash the impugned proceeding.
5. On perusal of the material, it is noticed that much earlier to the lodging of the instant complaint, petitioners herein had lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 in crime No.148/2014 and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 448, 506 read with section 34 of IPC.
6. The remand application referred to by learned counsel for petitioners in Crime No.148/2014 indicates that on 28.4.2004 itself, respondent No.2 was arrested and was subjected to medical examination and was produced before the learned Magistrate. There is nothing on record to show that respondent No.2 had complained of any injury when he was produced before learned Magistrate. There is nothing on record to show that he was found with injury, when he was subjected to medical examination after his arrest. On 29.4.2014, respondent No.2 lodged the instant complaint alleging that on 27.4.2014 at 9.30 p.m., he was assaulted and abused by the complainant. Even though, the charge sheet is filed against the petitioners under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC, the above circumstances clearly indicate that the complaint is an afterthought and the allegations made against the petitioner are baseless and circumstances discussed above clearly suggest that respondent No.2 has abused the process of court only with a view to spite the petitioners and as a counterblast to the case filed against him. The instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and filed with mala fide and ulterior motive. As a result, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.968/2015 on the file of leaned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, Chikkaballapura, are quashed.
Cs/-
CT:RG Sd/- JUDGE