wIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1683 OF 2018 Between:
Sri Rajendra, Son of Venkataramaiah, Aged about 54 years Residing at Menasiganahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk-560 106.
Bengaluru District. …Petitioner (By Sri.Fayaz Sab B.G, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Inspector of Police Anekal Police Station, Anekal Town, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Sri.M.Sampangi, S/o Late Muniswamappa, Aged about 60 years, Residing at Menasiganahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. … Respondents (By Sri.S.T.Naik, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the First Information Report/FIR in Crime No.160/2017 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 461, 465, 471, 504, 506, 120B and 149 of the IPC, 1860, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and without application of mind against the petitioner, which is produced and marked as Annexure-E, so far as petitioner is concerned.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the case papers.
2. Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint against petitioner and four others in PCR.No.134/2016 and sought for said compliant be referred to jurisdictional police for investigation. On account of respondent No.1- Police registering F.I.R against all the accused persons, accused Nos.2 to 6 approached this Court in Crl.P.No.8473/2017 for quashing of said proceedings and this Court after having noticed that complainant himself had filed a memo stating that he would not press said complaint against accused Nos.2 to 5, yet police had erroneously registered F.I.R. Petition filed by accused Nos.2 to 5 came to be allowed by order dated 05.12.2017 and liberty was granted to the jurisdictional police to proceed against accused No.1 as ordered by the Magistrate on 20.02.2016. Hence, petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court for quashing said proceedings contending inter alia :
“i) Allegations made in the complaint would disclose that it is a civil dispute ; and ii) other accused persons are already acquitted and proceedings against them have been quashed by this Court.
In so far as second condition is concerned, it is noticed that co-ordinate Bench had allowed the petition against accused Nos.2 to 5 on the ground that complainant himself had conceded that he would not press the allegations made against them. As such, said ground would not be available for the petitioner herein. In so far as contention No.1 is concerned, it is seen that complainant has specifically alleged that in the proceedings pending before Assistant Commissioner, petitioner had impersonated. This is a issue which requires to be investigated. As such, jurisdictional magistrate has rightly referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation. At this stage, the allegation made in the complaint alone would be the criteria for ascertaining the truth. As to whether allegations made in the complaint is true or not cannot be subject matter of evaluation in extraordinary jurisdiction. If said allegation made in the complaint would disclose offence, this Court would not embark upon quashing the proceedings. In the instance case, question of quashing does not arise as already noticed hereinabove.
No grounds. Hence petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE ag