IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9436/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. ASHWIN JOSHUA D’SOUZA S/O. SRI. JOHN D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O NO.34, GROUND FLOOR NO..4, SHANTHIPURA, CHIKKANAGAMANGALA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560 100. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE 2. SMT. PREMA K.S. PROPRIETOR, SHREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MEDICALS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, SHANTHIPURA VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560 100. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 SRI P.M. MATHEW, ADV. FOR R2 - ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R. DATED 12.09.2016 IN CR.NO.394/2016 REGISTERED BY THE PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE (1ST RESPONDENT) AS PER ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-B AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner has sought to quash the FIR filed against him in Crime.No.394/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 323, 354, 397, 448, 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.2. Counsel for the first respondent is absent. Perused the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the complaint do not apply to the petitioner herein. According to the complainant, only Accused No.1 trespassed into her shop and demanded money from her. There are no averments that the petitioner herein was present along with accused No.1 nor is there material to show that alleged demand was made by accused No.1 on the authorization of the petitioner herein. Therefore, there is no basis for the prosecution of the petitioner for the above offences.
4. Learned SPP-II has however argued in support of the FIR registered against the petitioner contending that the averments made in the complaint prima-facie disclose commission of offences by both the accused.
5. Considered the averments and perused the records.
6. A careful reading of the complaint reveals that on the date of occurrence, accused No.1 was not authorized by the present petitioner either to demand or to collect money on his behalf. Merely on the ground that during the occurrence accused No.1 proclaimed that he was collecting the amount on behalf of the petitioner herein, he cannot be implicated for the alleged offences. The allegations made in the complaint do not make out any of the offences alleged in the FIR insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore in my view registration of the FIR against the petitioner is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The F.I.R. in CR.No.394/2016 registered by the Parappana Agrahara Police on the file of the IX Additional CMM Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru City, is quashed only insofar as petitioner/accused No. 2 is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.