IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2161 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Reeta joseph @ Reeta Jhon W/o Sri Joseph, Aged about 49 years, Resident of No.002, Green India, Dicey Apartment, Chowarappa Layout, Kamanahalli, Bangalore – 84.
2. Sri Subramanya B S/o Late Babu, Aged about 47 years, Resident of No.004, Green India, Dicey Apartment, Chowarappa Layout, Kamanahalli, Bangalore – 84.
... Petitioners (By Sri Ramu K.S, Advocate) AND 1. State of Karnataka Represented by the Station House Officer, Banaswadi Police Station, Bangalore City, Bangalore – 560084, Rep. by SPP, High Court Building.
2. Smt D Ratnamma @ D Ratnam W/o Late Purshottam Das Aged about 67 years Residing at No.29, 5th Main Road YARA Residency, Palace Guthahalli Bangalore – 560003.
... Respondents (By Sri. S Rachaiah – HCGP for Respondent) Crl.P filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 51505/2017 in the court of Hon’bel XI A.C.M.M., Bangalore and further proceedings thereof including charge sheet.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri Ramu K.S., learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP for State. Perused the records.
2. Second respondent - complainant lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 29.08.2016 alleging that site bearing No.314, situated at HRBR Layout, 2nd Block, Banaswadi, Kalyan Nagar, measuring 50 x 80 feet was allotted to her late husband by BDA who was working in the Health Department, Government of Karnataka and pursuant to same, lease cum sale deed was executed and khata was also mutated to his name and on his demise in the year 1998 she sought for mutating the revenue records to her name and accordingly, on 22.02.2003, khata was transferred to the name of the complainant by the BDA. She has further alleged that on 29.08.2016 when she had been to the said site, she saw accused persons were putting up construction over the site allotted by BDA belonging to her and when questioned petitioners had threatened her and abused her in filthy language and also posed a threat that in the event of complainant were to come near the site in question, she would be physically assaulted. Said complaint came to be registered in Cr.No.447/2016 against the petitioners and other accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 506, 341, 504, 143, 447 read with Section 149 of IPC. For quashing of said proceedings petitioners are before this Court.
3. It is the contention of Sri Ramu K.S., learned counsel appearing for petitioners that similar complaint had been lodged by the petitioners against complainant and jurisdictional police have given an endorsement stating that it is a civil dispute which has to be resolved in a civil court, whereas against the petitioners criminal prosecution has been initiated at the instance of the complainant and thereby jurisdictional police are adopting dual standards. Hence, he prays for quashing of the proceedings. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that dispute is of more of civil nature which will have to be resolved in the civil suit and the respondent/complainant has already filed a suit in O.S.No.6388/2016 and has obtained an order of status-quo on 03.09.2016 and as such continuation of the present proceedings in question against petitioners is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, Sri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent would support the case of the prosecution and prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. It is well settled law that Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing summons to accused is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima-facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. Quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where complaint does not disclose any offence, or it is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it would be open for this Court to quash the same.
However, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done by trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a meaningful reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations made therein, in the light of the statement made in the complaint disclosing the alleged offence, then there would be no justification for this Court to interfere and quash proceedings in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
6. Defence that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the course of the trial, may lead to acquittal, are also not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, only question relevant would be whether allegations made in the complaint spell out ingredients of the criminal offence or not.
7. In this background, a perusal of the complaint dated 29.08.2016 would disclose that prima-facie, offences that are alleged against the petitioners, the correctness or otherwise of the said allegation has to be decided only in the trial. Complaint dated 29.08.2016, Annexure-E would disclose that one Mr.Cyril Prabhu, who is said to be the son of accused No.1 has lodged a complaint with Banaswadi PS alleging that in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.305/2, a writ petition has been filed before this Court in W.P.Nos.42922- 924/2016 is pending consideration. It is in this background, the jurisdictional police have rightly issued an endorsement stating that it is for the petitioners to resolve the said issue in the pending proceedings. However, in the complaint lodged by second respondent dated 29.08.2016 she has clearly alleged that petitioners along with other accused persons had not only attempted to assault the complainant but had also threatened her. As such, jurisdictional police have rightly registered an FIR against petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 506, 341, 504, 143, 447 read with Section 149 of IPC. Since prima- facie ingredients of the offence alleged are made out in the complaint, question of entertaining this petition for quashing the proceedings would not arise.
No grounds. Criminal petition is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DKB