IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7652 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
Sri. M.H. Sampath Kumar, S/o. Late Hanumanthappa, Aged about 39 years, Resident of No.2, Krishnappa Building, Lakamma Layout, Horamavu Agrahara, Bengaluru City – 560 043. …Petitioner (By Sri. Venkatesh H.N., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by PSI Hennur Police Station, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru – 560 045.
2. Tahsildhar and Taluk Executive Magistrate, Bengaluru East Taluk, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru City – 560 043. ...Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1; R2 – served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings insofar as this petitioner is concerned in MAG/CR.No.53/2012-13 on the file of the Tahsildhar and Taluk Executive Magistrate, East Taluk, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru, including FIR In Crime No.86/2013 on the file of Hennur P.S., Bengaluru City.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings by the Tahasildar and Taluk Executive Magistrate, East Taluk, K.R.Puram in MAG/CR.No.53/12-13 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and the registration of FIR in Crime No.86/2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is not a party to any of the proceedings referred in the FIR. Therefore, initiation of criminal action against the petitioner under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court. But on going through the records produced along with the petition, it is seen that the FIR is registered based on the opinion expressed by the Taluk Executive Magistrate that proceedings are pending between the parties in Crime Nos.240/2012 and 242/2012 and there is also reference to the NCR No.112/2013 and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in O.S.No.7439/2011.
4. The petitioner herein is a complainant in Crime No.242/2012 and an accused in Crime No.240/2012. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he has been wrongly implicated in the alleged offence cannot be accepted. The question as to whether the allegations made therein are sufficient to constitute the offence is not required to be gone into at this stage. Hence, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the instant case, at this stage.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV