IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.948 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
ROSHNI JANET ALVA D/O LATE ROSARIO BONOA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT 4450, S PARK AVE, # L607, CHEVY CHASE, M D 20815, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (BY SRI: K.A. ARIGA, ADV., FOR SRI RANJITH K S, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.
2. SRI PRABHAKAR G AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O BEERA POOJARY R/AT "ISIRI"
D.NO. 1-4-6 KUNJIBETTU SHIVALLI VILLAGE UDUPI-567101.
(BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1;
... RESPONDENTS SRI: JAGADEESHA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.58/13 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.C.J. AND JMFC, UDUPI, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 447, 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code. Petitioner has taken up a plea that as on the date of the alleged commission of offences i.e., on 12.04.2012, the petitioner was in United States of America, and that she has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences. Even in the complaint lodged at the earliest instance, there were no specific allegations against the petitioner herein and under the said circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant is absent and has not addressed any arguments.
2. Heard learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, who has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the plea of alibi set up by the petitioner is required to be considered only during trial and the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
3. The allegations made in the complaint insofar as the petitioner is concerned find place at para 3 of the complaint which read as under:-
3. The complainant submits that the accused No.4 who is the henchman, partisan of the accused Nos.1 to 3. With the common intention, 12.04.2012, the accused persons trespassed into the properties and tried to enter the house of the complainant. When protested, they left the scene and again on the next day, they came for compromise talk saying that they should be allowed to stay in the house for 2 months. When the complainant disagreed, they attempted to assault the complainant went back warning the complainant with dire consequences putting him to death. Under the guise of settlement, the accused persons demanded Rs.50 lakh from the complainant or else they threatened that the complainant would be murdered.
4. A reading of the said allegation would indicate that none of the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant, but only made an attempt to enter into the house of the complainant. Further allegations made therein would indicate that on the next day, there was a compromise between the parties and the alleged request made by accused No.1-3 is stated to have been turned down by the complainant. The complaint was lodged only on 25.04.2012. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in lodging of the complaint. But in para 5 of the complaint, it is stated that on getting information that the court has granted an injunction order in favour of the complainant, accused No.4 brought about 10 loads of waste mud in a lorry and dumped into the properties of the complainant. Thus the material allegation is directed against accused No.4.
5. From the above narration, it can be gathered that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein made an attempt to trespass into the property of the complainant on 12.04.2012. Petitioner has produced an attested copy of her passport, which discloses that on 12.04.2012, the petitioner was in Chicago, United States of America. There is nothing in the said passport to indicate that the petitioner had arrived to India at the relevant time. Copy of the passport of the petitioner is attested by Sri. K.N. Jha, Attache(Cons) Embassy of India, Washingdon DC(USA) on 31.01.2014. Though at the stage of considering the case under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is normally not bound to look into the documents produced by the accused, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MADAN SINGH & ANR. vs. VEE PEE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., and Ors. reported in ILR (2013) II DELHI 1465, unimpeachable evidence of sterling quality is to be considered by the Court to consider the veracity of the allegations made against the petitioners so as to prevent abuse of process of Court. In the instant case, as there is nothing on record to suspect the document produced by the petitioner to show that at the relevant time, she was in India and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1- State having not disputed the said document by filing any statement of objections, said document-passport, in my view, could be considered for accepting the plea set up by the petitioner that the said allegations are levelled against the petitioner without any truth or basis. Since the petitioner is sought to be sent up for trial on false and baseless allegations, to prevent further abuse of process of Court, it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in C.CNo.58/2013 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JFMC, Udupi are quashed only insofar as the petitioner viz., accused No.3 is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-