IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4687 OF 2018 Between:
1. Smt.Veena .R W/o G.V. Bhaskar, Age 40 years, Residing at No.14, 5th Cross, Kasavanahali, Sarjapura Road, Bengaluru – 560 035.
2. Baskar S/o Venkata Ramanappa, Age 45 years, Residing at No.14, 5th cross, Kasavanahali, Sarjapura Road, Bengaluru – 560 035.
(By Sri.N.Suresha, Advocate) And:
1. State by HSR Layout Police Bengaluru – 560 101. Represented by S.P.P. High Court Bengaluru.
2. Smt. Lavanya W/o Ramachandra Reddy, 3. Kum. Thanusha D/o Ramachandra Reddy, …Petitioners Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are residing at No.174, Agara Village, Sector-1, H.S.R. Layout, Bengaluru – 560 102.
… Respondents (By Sri.S.Chandrashekaraiah, HCGP for R1).
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the charge sheet dated 02.04.2015 at Annexure-B passed in Crime No.329/2015 registered in H.S.R. Layout Police Station on the file of VI Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C. No.5459/2016.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard Sri.N.Suresha, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.Chandrashekaraiah, learned counsel appearing for the State. Perused the records.
2. Respondents No.2 and 3 lodged a complaint on 02.04.2015 before HSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, alleging that petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 along with rowdy elements barged into their house on 02.04.2015 at 9.00 A.M. and not only abused them with foul and filthy language but also assaulted them and threatened the complainants of dire consequences for having sold a site in their favour, which is being claimed by a third party and they have failed to have resolve the issue. Said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.329/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. On investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 02.04.2015 in C.C. No.5459/2016, which proceedings are pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Hence, petitioners are before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
3. It is the contention of Sri.N.Suresha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that on account of site sold by the husband of respondent No.2 to complainants for a sum of Rs.38,00,000/- which is now claimed by third party and said property being in dispute, petitioners have been deprived of their money as well as property and as such, when the accused persons demanded for said dispute being resolved, complainants have not only assaulted petitioners but have also filed a false complaint which has now resulted in the present case and in respect of a complaint filed by the petitioners, it has been duly registered and is now pending for trial on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crime No.351/2015 and as such, he prays for quashing of the proceedings pending against petitioners. He also submits that civil suit is pending in respect of these disputes in O.S.No.657/2015 and as such, present proceedings is being used by complainants to dictate terms and an such, he prays for proceedings being quashed.
4. Per contra, Sri.Chandrashekaraiah learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State would support the registration of the complaint against the petitioners and also continuation of said proceedings against them.
5. Quashing of criminal proceedings is called for where allegations made in the complaint do not disclose an offence or if it is frivolous and vexatious. If the allegations made in the complaint does not constitute offence for which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, then it would be open for this court to quash the same. It is not necessary that meticulous analysis of the material produced by the prosecution should be done by this Court to find out whether same would end in conviction or acquittal. However, if it appears that on reading of the complaint and consideration of allegations therein that ingredients of the offences are disclosed, there would be no justification for this Court to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
6. Defences that may be available or factual aspects which establishes during trial may lead to acquittal are also not a ground for quashing the proceedings at the threshold. At this stage, the only question which would be relevant for consideration is whether averments made in the complaint discloses the ingredients of criminal offence or not. In this background, perusal of the complaint in question when perused would disclose prima-facie offences that are alleged against petitioners. The correctness or otherwise of said allegations has to be decided only at the trial. Hence, this Court is of the view, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
7. Since it is stated that a complaint has also been filed by petitioners which is said to be pending in Crime No.351/2015, trial Court may as well take up both the cases together subject to accused in said proceedings having no objection and decide both cases on merits.
In view of dismissal of main petition, IA.No.1/2018 for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.1/2018 is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE UN