IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5247 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. Raghupati S/o Thimme Gowda Aged about 36 years 2. Puttaswamy S/o Dollichikkankaiah Aged about 45 years R/o Hosakere Village, Koppa Hobli Maddur Taluk, Mandya District-571425. ... Petitioners (By Sri Basavaiah . C - Advocate) AND:
1. State by Besaganahalli Police Station Maddur Taluk Mandya District:571419 Reptd. By S.P.P. High Court Building Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Shivarathnamma S.C. W/o Parameshwara Major, Housewife, Hosakere Village Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk Mandya District – 571425. ... Respondents (By Sri S. Rachaiah – HCGP for R-1) This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 329/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) and JMFC, Maddur (CR.No. 64/2017 dated 06.04.2017 and charge sheet No. 60/2017 dated 09.09.2017) filed by the respondent police against the petitioners under the false alleged complaint offences under Section 504, 341, 354, 114 r/w 34 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Basavaiah, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State. No notice is issued to second respondent – defacto complainant since petition is being dismissed at the threshold for the reasons indicated herein below:
2. Sri. Basavaiah, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that a false complaint came to be lodged by second respondent herein against petitioners alleging that they had abused, threatened, manhandled and assaulted the complainant resulting in FIR being lodged against them in Crime No.64/2017. Thereafter, on conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed without examining the statements of witnesses and particularly that of the complainant - Shivarathnamma. Hence, drawing the attention of this court to the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Sri. Basavaiah, learned counsel for petitioners would contend that entire proceedings is an abuse of process of law. Hence, he prays for quashing of the proceedings.
3. Per contra, Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State would support the case of the prosecution.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of entire records, this court is of the considered view that at the time of considering the prayer for quashing of the proceedings, it would not embark upon conducting a mini trial or scrutinize the charge-sheet materials as though examining the same in the background of evidence having been tendered. If prima-facie, complaint/charge-sheet material discloses offences alleged, it would suffice for allowing trial to be proceeded with. On the other hand, if the charge- sheet material or allegation made in the complaint does not remotely suggest that such offence having been committed, this court would not hesitate for a moment to quash the proceedings. Thus, it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In this background, when allegations made in the complaint in the instant case are read along with the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it would clearly disclose that there are certain inconsistencies. The fact remains that complainant has stuck to her allegations made in the complaint with regard to torture and assault made on her. However, no opinion is expressed on the merits of case, as it would prejudice the rights of either parties and as such, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the proceedings. Hence, Criminal Petition is rejected.
In view of petition having been rejected, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and it is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Np/-