IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4338/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI MOHAN S/O. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.1 NAVALENAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577 202 2. SRI RAMESH BABU S/O.UNNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.6 SANTHOSH NILAYA SHARAVATHINAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 (BY SRI GIREESHA J.T., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALUR P.S. REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 (BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.3923/2016 (CRIME NO.115/2016) OF BAGALUR P.S. ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 511 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned Counsel appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri Gireesha J.T., learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
3. A suo moto complaint registered on 29.06.2016, has resulted in FIR in Crime No.115/2016 being registered against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
4. The gist of the allegation is that CW.1 had received a credible information and as such, he proceeded along with panchas CWs.2, 3, 10 to 17 to the house of CW.7 at Royal Enclave Farm, near Sathanur Colony, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and at that time, accused Nos.1 to 8 were planning to earn more money by cheating people and were discussing amongst themselves that brass vessel which they were having is to be shown to people and induce them to part with money on the ground if they were to keep that vessel in their house, they can earn money in crores. Hence, FIR came to be registered against petitioners and other accused persons for the offences aforestated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
5. It is the contention of Sri. Gireesha J.T., learned Counsel appearing for petitioners that a plain reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence much less the one alleged and as such continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, he prays for quashing of said proceedings.
6. Per contra, Sri S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent- State would submit that in the light of charge sheet material disclosing the offence alleged against petitioners, this Court should be slow in exercising the jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and as such, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. In the light of rival contentions raised and in the background of charge sheet material, only question that would arise for consideration is:
“Whether this Court is required to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the charge sheet against petitioners or not?”
The answer will have to be necessarily in the affirmative in the instant case for reasons indicated herein below:
At the outset, it requires to be noticed that while considering a prayer or plea for quashing of proceedings, this Court will have to examine as to whether prima facie the offence alleged against petitioners is made out and even if the said material were to remain uncontraverted, said proceedings would not end in conviction or not? If allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute any offence alleged of which cognizance has been taken, continuation of such proceedings would definitely be onerous and continuation of it would not be in the interest of justice. However, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of charge sheet material should be done before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. If it appears on a meaningful reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in the light of statement of witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation that offence alleged is made out, then it would not be necessary to quash the proceedings. Likewise, defence that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing of the proceedings even before recording of the evidence. At this stage, only question relevant as observed hereinabove is whether averments made in the complaint spell out ingredients of criminal offence or not. It is in this background when complaint as well as charge sheet material is examined, it would clearly indicate that neither the offence under Section 420 of IPC or Section 511 of IPC is attracted, inasmuch as, there is no specific allegation made in the complaint about petitioners having induced any particular third party to part with any property so as to constitute the offence of cheating. That apart, Section 511 of IPC which is pressed into service is also not attracted, inasmuch as, a plain reading of Section 511 of IPC would indicate that mere “attempt” to commit an offence would not be sufficient and “attempt” as the expression found in Section 511 itself would indicate to mean the intent combined with an act short of the theme intended. It may be described as an endeavour to do an act, carried beyond mere preparation but short of execution. Three necessary ingredients of the crime being; (a) intention (b) preparation and (c) attempt to commit the offence.
8. In the instant case, as could be seen from complaint as well as charge sheet material namely, statement of witnesses which would disclose that accused persons were only discussing amongst themselves that brass vessel can be shown to public to be a vessel which would earn crores of rupees and with this intent, they were attempting to cheat public without any further act, would not attract Section 511 of IPC. However mere discussion, though would express the intent it would not suffice, since other two ingredients of Section 511 is not found as per the allegations made against them in the charge sheet.
9. In that view of the matter, keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 that even if the allegations made in the complaint were to remain unrebutted or uncontraverted, it would definitely not lead to conviction of accused and as such continuation of proceedings against petitioners would definitely be an abuse of process of law and also waste of precious judicial time, such proceedings requires to be quashed by exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
In that view of the matter and for the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioners in CC.No.3923/2016 (Crime No.115/2016) registered by Bagalur Police Station on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 r/w Section 34 of IPC, is quashed and petitioners are acquitted of above said offence.
In view of petition having been allowed, IA.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE LB