IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.835 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SMT. PUSHPA W/O J.P. MUNIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.3561, 20TH MAIN IIND STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA MYSORE-17 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. A.N. RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIRAJPET RURAL POLICE REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 2. SMT. RADHA POOVAIAH W/O M. POOVAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS KOLTHODU, BIGODU VILLAGE VIRAJPET TALUK MADAKERI DISTRICT-561 121 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1;
SHRI. K.N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIRAJPET IN C.C.NO.471/12.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri A.N. Radha Krishna, learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri Nasrulla Khan, learned HCGP for the State and Shri K.N. Praveen Kumar, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition to quash proceedings in C.C.No.471/2012 on the file of JMFC, Virajpet.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that one Shri T.K. Ramesh, son-in-law of the complainant had borrowed money from the petitioner and issued cheques. Petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,(‘N.I. Act’ for short) in C.C.No.489/2006. After trial, Shri K.T. Ramesh has been convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and to pay Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) to the petitioner towards compensation. As a counter blast, complainant registered FIR No.18/2012 on 15.12.2012, for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of IPC alleging inter alia that on 14.02.2012, petitioner had threatened her. Police, after investigation have filed the charge sheet. Accordingly, he prays that criminal case against the petitioner may be quashed.
4. Shri Nasrulla Khan, learned HCGP argued in support of the charge sheet.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
6. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 14.02.2012, at 5:45 p.m., petitioner had gone to complainant’s house and threatened her. It is also alleged that, on the earlier occasions also, petitioner had threatened that she would eliminate complainant’s daughter’s family. Admittedly, police, after investigation have filed the charge sheet.
7. The solitary ground urged in support of this petition is that complaint is false and it is filed as a counter blast to the criminal case filed by the petitioner against the complainant’s son-in-law under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
The plea of innocence urged on behalf of the petitioner can be decided only after trial. In the circumstances, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV