IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.421 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Shwetha, W/o V G Natraj, Aged about 25 years, R/at No. 268, Manchinabele, Punarvasathi Colony, Kadabagere Gram Panchayath, Dasanpura Hobli, Bengaluru-562 162. ...PETITIONER (By Sri. Syed Ummer, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By K.P.Agrahara Police Station, Magadi Road, Bengaluru-560 023.
Rep. SPP High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-01.
2. Sri Ramesh N, S/O Narayanappa, Aged about 44 years, R/at No. 21/22, 2nd Cross, Manjunathanagara, Bengaluru - 560 023. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri.S.Chandrashekaraiah, Advocate) This Crl.P is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.298/2018 of K.P Agrahara Police Station, pending before the 44th A.C.M.M., Bengaluru for the offence p/u/s 420,464,468,471,120B r/w 149 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Admission along with I.A.1/2019 this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri Syed Ummer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 in PCR No.15557/2018 is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings which has now culminated in registration of FIR in Crime No.298/2018, for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 149, 468, 464, 420, 471 of IPC, pending before 44th Addl. CMM Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru.
3. It is the contention of Sri Syed Ummer, learned counsel for petitioner that though first respondent – police have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, have erroneously registered the FIR against petitioner. He would submit that even a bare reading of the complaint would only indicate that dispute between the petitioner - accused and the 2nd respondent is more of a civil nature and as such, the jurisdictional police erred in registering the FIR against the petitioner for the afore-stated offences. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, Sri Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would support the case of the prosecution.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the State and bestowing my careful attention to the rival contentions raised at the Bar it requires to be noticed that the exercise of jurisdiction under S.482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings would be called for when the complaint does not suggest any act on the part of the accused and the probable defence that may be raised by the accused would not be a ground on which the proceedings can be quashed.
6. Keeping the above said salutary principle in mind, the complaint/FIR which has been lodged/registered by the 2nd respondent when examined, it would not detain this Court for too long to brush aside the contentions raised by the petitioner’s counsel for the simple reason that at paragraph Nos.4 and 6 of the complaint, complainant has specifically alleged the role played by the petitioner who is none other than the wife of accused No.1. Merely because the dispute relates to an immovable property which may have civil flavour by itself would not be a ground to quash the proceedings. At this stage, this Court would not embark upon conducting enquiry as to whether there was any mens rea on the part of the petitioner in purportedly deceiving the complainant. Entering into such discussion would definitely prejudice the rights of either of the parties. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no merit in this petition and as such it stands dismissed.
I.A.1 of 2019 for stay does not survive for consideration.
SD/- JUDGE sac*