IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8473/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VIDYASHREE D/O RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PRACTICING AS AN ADVOCATE AT ANEKAL, RESIDING AT MENASIGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-560 106, BENGALURU DISTRICT.
2. SRI T.V.S. KRISHNAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARANAYAKANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-560 106, BENGALURU DISTRICT.
3. SRI K. RAJESH KUMAR S/O KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARANAYAKANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-560 106, BENGALURU DISTRICT.
4. SRI SAGAR S/O K.P. MADHU MOHAN RAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.115, BAYASABI LAYOUT WARD NO.21, ANEKAL TOWN ANEKAL TALUK – 560 106 BENGALURU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANEKAL POLICE STATION, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU.
2. SRI M. SAMPANGI S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT MENASIGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.2017) ... PETITIONERS …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.160/2017 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 419, 461, 465, 467, 471, 504, 506, 120B & 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ANEKAL AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the records.
2. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint against one Mr.Rajendra and also against these petitioners in PCR No.134/2016 and sought for reference of the said case to the Police for investigation. However, the order sheet dated 20.02.2016 of the trial Court discloses that the complainant himself has filed a memo not pressing the complaint against accused Nos.2 to 5. As per the memo, the learned Magistrate has specifically passed an order on 20.02.2016 mentioning that the complaint dismissed against accused Nos.2 to 5 as per memo dated 18.02.2016. The Magistrate has specifically mentioned that the complaint is referred to PSI, Anekal PS for investigation against accused No.1 only under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit the report. However, respondent No.1 – Police ignorantly registered the FIR against accused No.1 as well as against these petitioners. The registration of FIR against these petitioners is baseless and it is bad in law, in view of the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
In the above said circumstances, FIR has to be quashed partially, so far as the petitioners are concerned. Hence, the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed. The FIR registered in FIR No.160/2017 so far as against these petitioners are concerned is hereby quashed. However, the Police is at liberty to proceed against accused No.1 as ordered by the Magistrate.
I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE ca