IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2323 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. MR. SIRAJ ISMAIL, S/O MOHAMMED SYED ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2. MR. RAJKUMAR, S/O KUMARAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT SAI PRAFUL, NO.234, 8TH CROSS, WINFIELD GARDEN, MCECHS LAYOUT, DR. SHIVARAMKARANTH NAGAR, NEAR HEGDE NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 077. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.GOVINDARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NEHRU.P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY S.H.O, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MR. SACHIN, S/O SHAMBU KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2284, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, S.P.NAIDU LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THEM IN CRIME NO.33/2018, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED X A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 427, 506, 504, 447, 323, 384, 324 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners who were arraigned as accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.33/2018 registered by Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 506, 504, 447, 323, 384 & 324 of Indian Penal Code, are before this court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. 2nd petitioner’s daughter is married to 2nd respondent-complainant and their marriage came to be solemnized on 22.06.2015 at Guruvayur, Kerala State, as per Hindu Customs and Rites and she was earlier married to one Mr.Bharat @ Bharat Vikram and by virtue of petition filed under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.4547/2013, said marriage came to be dissolved and it is thereafter, 2nd respondent got married to her. Certain disputes are said to have arisen between them resulting in several cases being filed against each other which is pending in different courts. When matter stood thus, 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C before the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, which came to be registered in P.C.R. No.60230/2017 whereunder, learned Magistrate has ordered for jurisdictional police to investigate into the complaint by referring it under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The allegation in the complaint made by the 2nd respondent herein is that on 14.04.2016 at about 9 am, being the new year, he had gone to his father-in-law’s house to see his daughter and his wife and came to know that she was residing in her brother-in-law’s house [co-brother] which was not to his liking. He has further alleged that on the same day, the petitioners came to his house and accused No.1 manhandled complainant’s grand-mother who is aged about 90 years and also the mother who is aged about 60 years, assaulted them, destroyed the furnitures and as such, they have committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 384, 427, 447, 504 & 506 r/w 34 of IPC. For quashing of said proceedings, petitioners are before this court.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioners that present complaint is an off-shoot of the proceedings initiated by 2nd petitioner’s daughter namely the complainant’s wife and to wreck vengeance, a false complaint has been filed. He would also state that no such incident had taken place and only with an intention to cause mental agony, such false complaint has been filed. Hence, he seeks for allowing the petition and quashing the proceedings. Per contra, learned HCGP would support case of the prosecution.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, it would be required to notice at this stage itself, that quashing of the criminal proceedings is called for only in case where complaint itself does not disclose any offence or it is frivolous, vexations or oppressive. If the allegations set-out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which the accused is alleged to have committed, it would be open for this court to exercise the extraordinary power to quash such frivolous proceedings. Likewise, if it appears from bare reading of the complaint that allegations made therein are frivolous and would not attract the offences to which accused is alleged to have committed, it would not detain this court for too long to quash such proceedings also. However, defences that may be available are the aspects to be established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not the grounds for quashing of the complaint at the threshold. At this stage, the only question is whether the averments/allegations made in the complaint spell out the ingredients of the offence alleged or not.
5. Having regard to these aspects, when complaint in question is perused, this court is of considered view that prima facie offences that are alleged against petitioners exist. The correctness or otherwise of said allegation has to be decided only after trial. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to stifle the investigation or prevent the prosecution from investigating the matter. As such, without expressing any opinion in that regard, this petition stands rejected.
In view of the petition having been rejected, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE cbc