IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3937 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. P M RAFTHAS S/O MOHIDDIN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NITTUR VILLAGE, BALALE POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 2. P M MOHIDEEN S/O LATE.P.MOHAMMED AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NITTUR VILLAGE, BALALE POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT: LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: A K SUBBAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIRAJPET TOWN POLICE STATION, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT REP BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 2. HAZIRA D/O ADAM BETOLI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, CHITTADE, BETOLI VILLAGE VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 SRI: MOHAMED KHAN. A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: M.T. RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND F.I.R. NO.0045/2012 DATED 12.07.2012 OF VIRAJPET TOWN P.S., REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN HOLDING THAT IT IS AGAINST LAW.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.45/2012. The said FIR is registered based on the complaint dated 12.07.2012 lodged by the second respondent. The complaint contains necessary allegations attracting the offences under sections 417, 506, 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint is an outcome of the frustration of the second respondent who has failed to bring about her marriage with petitioner No.1; the allegations made therein do not attract any of the offences alleged against the petitioners; therefore, initiation of criminal action against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of court and is liable to be quashed at the hands of this court. Secondly, she contends that prior to lodging of the impugned complaint, the second respondent had lodged a complaint on 26.06.2012 before the very same police making similar allegations and therefore, registration of the case based on the second complaint lodged by the second respondent is legally not tenable.
3. I do not find any merit or substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Insofar as the allegations attracting the offences under sections 417, 506, 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, there are specific allegations that on the false promise of marrying the second respondent, the first petitioner made the respondent No.2 pregnant and forced her to consume abortion pills. There are also allegations that when the second respondent approached petitioner No.1, he not only abused her, but also threatened to kill her and throw acid on her. These allegations prima facie attract the ingredients of the above offences. The said allegations are therefore require to be investigated into.
4. Insofar as the second contention urged by the petitioners with regard to the maintainability of the second complaint is concerned, the said submission is wholly misplaced. No doubt, prior to the lodging of the impugned complaint in Crime No.45/2012, the second respondent had approached the Inspector of Police, Virajpet Town Police Station making a complaint against the first petitioner alleging that the first petitioner has been refusing to marry her. In the said complaint dated 26.06.2012, she has sought the intervention of the police to bring about her marriage with petitioner No.1. There are no allegations whatsoever of any cognizable offence in the said complaint. The said complaint did not disclose any offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and hence, the Virajpet Police closed the said proceedings by registering the said complaint in C.Misc.No.269/2012. The allegations made therein do not have the trappings of the complaint within the meaning of section 2(d) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the complaint dated 12.07.2012 amounts to a second complaint and therefore initiation of criminal case against the petitioners is legally not tenable cannot be accepted. Both these contentions do not deserve acceptance. The allegations made against the petitioners require to be thoroughly investigated. For the said reasons, petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss