IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5658/2013 BETWEEN 1. SRI ADISAYAKUMAR, WRONGLY MENTIONED AS ADISH KUMAR IN FIR & CHARGESHEET, S/O YESUDAS, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, H R PERSONAL MANAGER, NO.143-D, LUSTRE JEWELS PVT. LTD., WITHIN THE PREMISES OF SURAJ DIAMOND PRIVATE LTD., BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, EN.HOTEL ROAD, HEBBAGODI POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE 560099.
2. SRI SRINIVAS, S/O RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, PERSONAL MANAGER, NO.143-D, SURAJ DIAMOND PRIVATE LTD., BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, E N HOTEL ROAD, HEBBAGODI POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 099.
3. SRI RAVICHANDRAN, S/O RAMASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, GENERAL MANAGER, NO.143-D, SURAJ DIAMOND PRIVATE LTD., BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, E N HOTEL ROAD, HEBBAGODI POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 099. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI H P LEELADHAR, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION, HEBBAGODI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, PIN - 560 099.
2. SRI SANAGOUDA R KADUR, S/O RAMANAGOUDA KADUR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AS ELECTRICIAN, SURAJ DIAMOND, BOMMASANDRA, R/AT. C/O SHANKAR BUILDING, OPP: HEBBAGODI BAYEEKHAN, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 099. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP II FOR R1, SRI LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADV. FOR R2 – ABSENT.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN C.C.NO.324/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CJ (JR.DN) AND JMFC ANEKAL, IN THE ABOVE CASE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings in CC No.324/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 504, 506 R/w. Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II for respondent no.1. Counsel for respondent no.2 is absent. Perused the records.
3. Proceedings are initiated against the petitioners based on the complaint lodged by second respondent. After investigation, charge sheet is laid for the above offences. Substance of the accusations is that on 16.4.2011, the complainant was called to the Conference Room by accused no.1 and he was unlawfully confined in the Chambers and was forced to sign a blank letter. It is further alleged that on 22.4.2011 at about 4 p.m. when the complainant was coming out of a Bakery after having coffee near Hebbagodi Bus Stand, the accused/petitioners herein threatened the complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet and the complaint do not attract the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 342, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. There is no corroboration to the allegations made by the complainant. The instant complaint is a sequel and a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioners and hence the proceedings against the petitioners are sheer abuse of the process of Court. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioners pleads to quash the said proceedings.
5. Learned SPP-II appearing for respondent-State supports the impugned charge sheet and submits that the material collected against the petitioners prima facie make out ingredients of offences punishable under the above sections and therefore, proceedings cannot be quashed.
6. On perusal of the charge sheet papers and the documents filed along with the complaint it is noticed that specific allegations are made to the effect that on 16.4.2011 the complainant was kept under unlawful confinement in the chambers and he was forced to sign a document and on 22.4.2011 and all the petitioners herein threatened the complainant. The contention of the petitioners that the allegations made in the complaint and the statement made by the petitioners suffer from inconsistency cannot be gone into at this stage.
7. On going through the statement of the complainant, I do not find any such infirmity in the case of the prosecution as sought to be made out by the petitioners. The complainant has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. At the stage of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC, this Court cannot go into the sufficiency of evidence nor is the Court entitled to analyze the evidence to arrive at a conclusion whether the said evidence is sufficient to record conviction against the petitioners. As the material on record clearly attracts the offences alleged against the petitioners and the said charges are sought to be substantiated with acceptable evidence, in my view, there is no reason to quash the proceedings. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint has been lodged against the petitioners as a sequel to the charge sheet submitted against respondent no.2, cannot be a reason to quash the proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR