IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 1419/2017 BETWEEN SRI. T. L. NAGARAJU, S/O. SRI. LINGA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O TALAGAVADI VILLAGE, KIRUGAVALU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK 571 430, MANDYA DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATEESH M. DODDAMANI, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY MALAVALLI TOWN POLICE STATION, MALAVALLI 571 430, MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. SRI. R. M. HEMANTH, S/O. MURGENDRA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O RAGI BOMANAHALLI, KIRUGAVALU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK-571 430, MANDYA DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.09.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.148/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DIST., VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION A/W IA NO.1/2017 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR registered against him in Crime No.148/2016 on 22.09.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 & 323 of IPC.
3. The records disclose that the petitioner-T.L. Nagaraju has filed a complaint against the 2nd respondent–R.M. Hemanth on 22.09.2016 at about 12.50 p.m. before the Malavalli Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No.146/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 & 506 of IPC. However, the 2nd respondent also filed FIR against this petitioner on the same day at about 5.00 p.m. before the same police station, which was registered in Crime No.148/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323 of IPC. Both of them have made allegations and counter allegations against each other with regard to the incident taken place on 22.09.2016 in the morning at 11.10 am. It is the allegation of the petitioner that, on that day, 2nd respondent herein, who is an Advocate, suddenly came to the Court Hall and started abusing the petitioner and assaulted the petitioner, and also threatened him with dire consequences of killing him and the petitioner has not done anything and kept quiet. On the other side, the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent discloses that, at the same time at about 10.a.m., the incident happened and the petitioner was sitting inside the Court Hall. As there was an abstention of Courts by the Advocates, the 2nd respondent told the petitioner to go out from the Court Hall. Immediately it is alleged that the petitioner caught hold the shirt collar of respondent No.2, assaulted him, abused him and threatened him with dire consequences of killing him etc. Looking to the above factual aspects and other circumstances of the case, it is seen that, there are case and counter cases filed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, as such, the content of which complaint is true and the content of which complaint is false, has to be investigated by the police during the course of investigation. Therefore, there is no question of quashing the FIR arises at this particular stage. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*