Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Y K Devanantha vs The State And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|11 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5292 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Y.K.DEVANANTHA, S/O Y.V.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, 4TH PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SUDHINDRA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE, BY INDIRANAGARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. PRASHANTH SAMBARGI, S/O S.B.SAMBARGI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.197, 7TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 038.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R2 SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CR.NO.165/2018 REGISTERED BY THE INDIRANAGAR POLICE, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506,420 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X A.C.M.M BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Second respondent has registered FIR No.165/2018 on 02.07.2018 in Indiranagar Police Station alleging that when he had gone to the office of the petitioner-accused on 05.03.2018, he was threatened with dire consequences. Petitioner had also claimed that he was a murderer and he had gone to jail earlier.
2. Shri.Sudhindra Bhat, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the entire incident as alleged in the complaint is false and designed to give criminal colour to financial transaction between the parties.
3. Shri.Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned advocate for the second respondent and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 submit that the overt-acts alleged in the complaint requires investigation by the police.
4. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
5. It is stated in the complaint that on 05.03.2018, petitioner had threatened to kill the complainant.
6. The complaint filed by second respondent before the police which has been registered as FIR No.165/2018 on 02.07.2018 contains specific allegations against petitioner. The relevant portion reads as follows:
“On 05/03/2018 Monday, when confronted at his office, he threatened to kill me and not ask for the advance money, he has abused me and warned me that he was already a big murderer and rowdy in the past and has gone through the Jail process and he does not fear to KILL me and does not fear the Law and police.”
(Emphasis supplied) 7. Learned Advocate for respondent submitted that it is not essential that a complaint must verbatim contain all ingredients of the offence alleged. He submitted that the threat to eliminate the complainant is very serious and requires investigation. He placed reliance on Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and others1 in support of this contention.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also filed an affidavit of the petitioner narrating his version in the case. According to him petitioner had deposited the original documents of his property with the complainant and as he could not pay the money within a month’s time, the complainant started calculating interest at the rate of 10% per month. In substance, he submitted that complainant has given the colour of a criminal case to a case which is purely civil in nature.
1 (1999)3 SCC 259 9. It is true that the complaint also contains reference to transfer of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- through RTGS to the accused towards purchase of agricultural property. However, the portion of the complaint extracted above contains allegations of threat and a claim that accused was already a murderer. It is also stated that accused has cheated many persons.
10. In the light of specific allegation of threat and dire consequences, complaint requires investigation. While exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a finding cannot be recorded with regard to the veracity of the complaint or the plea of innocence urged by the petitioner.
11. Resultantly this petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Y K Devanantha vs The State And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
11 July, 2019
Judges
  • P S Dinesh Kumar