1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3668 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Eregowda
S/o Rajappa
Major
R/o Nygere Village
Kasaba Hobli, Arakalgud Taluk
Hassan District - 573102.
2. Sri. Sadananda
S/o Eregowda
Major
R/o Nygere Village
Kasaba Hobli, Arakalgud Taluk
Hassan District - 573102.
3. Sri. Vishwanath
S/o Eregowda
Major
R/o Nygere Village
Kasaba Hobli, Arakalgud Taluk
Hassan District - 573102.
4. Smt. Rajamani @ Nilambika
W/o Eregowda
Major
R/o Nygere Village
2
Kasaba Hobli, Arakalgud Taluk
Hassan District - 573102.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, Advocate)
AND
1. State by Arakalgud Police Station
Arakalgud
Hassan District-573102.
2. Smt. Muthamma
W/o Earegowda
Major
R/o Nygere Village
Kasaba Hobli, Arakalgud Taluk
Hassan District - 573102.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R-1;
R-2 served)
This Criminal Petition filed under section 482 of
Cr.P.C., by the petitioners praying to quash the FIR at
Annexure-A registered in Cr.No.130/2016 on the file of the
learned Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.,) and JMFC, Arakalgud,
Hassan District for the offence punishable under Sections
341, 354, 323, 34 of IPC by the 1st Respondent and the
complaint filed by the 2nd Respondent before the
1st Respondent and award compensation to the petitioners
from the 2nd Respondent for maliciously lodging a false
complaint and for harassing them.
3
This criminal petition coming on for Admission this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioners No.1 to 4 have been arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.130 of 2016 registered by Respondent No.1 - Arakalgud Police, which is pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Arakalgud, Hassan District for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code have filed this petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
2. It is transpired from the complaint filed by the second respondent/complainant before the first respondent that on 04.05.2016, when she was standing outside her house and thereafter making her way into the house, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 obstructed her. Petitioner No.3 kicked her and petitioner No.4 hit her on her right shoulder. Petitioner No.2 resorted to arm twisting. As 4 such, she fell down and thereafter, when the petitioners left the place, she got into her house and the next morning, her son came to her and took her to the hospital for treatment. On the basis of a complaint filed by her, the case in Cr.No.130 of 2016 came to be registered by Arakalgud Police for the offences, which reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by the first respondent police.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the second respondent on an earlier occasion had filed similar complaint against the petitioners making unrighteous allegations. The first respondent on an investigation being done had filed 'B' report. Thus, there is no truth relating to the allegations of the second respondent Smt.Muthamma. But again, making unrighteous allegations, the second respondent had filed the present complaint. On 26.10.2015, the second respondent and her family members had committed the 5 offences punish able under Sections 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. As such, the petitioners had filed a complaint with the first respondent police. After investigation, the first respondent police had filed the charge-sheet.
The husband of the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2015, which is pending before the court of Civil Judge, Arakalgud for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property depicted in the plaint. The said suit is pending for adjudication between the parties. These are all the grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioner and on this premise seeking for intervention as under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if not, there shall be miscarriage of justice and prays to allow the petition by quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
4. Learned HCGP for Respondent/State took me through the allegations made in the complaint by the 6 second respondent. He submitted that the accused have caused some obstruction with a common intention to the complainant, as a result of which, she had sustained grievous injuries and the same has been ended in lodging of the complaint by the complainant. Subsequent to registration of the complaint, no investigation has taken place and no charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating agency. Unless investigation has been done in accordance with law, at this stage, it cannot be said that there are no prima-facie materials against the accused for commission of offence and seeking to quash the criminal proceedings by intervention as contemplated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not arise.
5. It is in this context of the contentions taken by the counsel for the petitioner and so also the learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent/State, it is relevant to refer Section 482 of Cr.P.C. restricting exercise of power of Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or 7 miscarriage of justice only to state of FIR - High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 even if charge-sheet is filed during pendency of application. In the instant case, it is also relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the case of ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA AND ANOTHER. Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND ANOTHER., reported in AIR 2019 SC 210, which reads as under:
"13. ..... "Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged....." The Court noticed a growing trend in business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases.
We find it strange that the complainant has not made any attempt for the recovery of the money of Rs. One Crore except by filing this criminal complaint. This action appears to be mala fide and unsustainable".
8
6. But in the instant petition, the case in O.S.No.17 of 2015 which is pending on the file of the Civil Judge, Arakalgud for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties depicted therein, which is a civil suit instituted by the husband of the second respondent Smt.Muthamma. The said case is pending for adjudication between the parties. Therefore, in the ratio of the reliance referred in various citations such as AIR 1977 SC 1489 ; AIR 2000 SC 754 ; AIR 2006 SC 2780; AIR 2008 SCW 6459; AIR 2014 SC 1006 and subsequently it has held as in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and others, which reads as under:
"4. 2006(6) SCC 736: (AIR 2006 SC 2780).
13. ........Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged....."9
The Court noticed a growing trend in business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases.
Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide an/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge".
7. Further, it is necessary to refer the reliance in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L.Muniswamy and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 wherein it has held as under:
10
"7.....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice...".
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons and the reliance stated supra, there is no hesitation for this Court to quash the FIR, which is registered by the respondent police in Cr.No.130 of 2016. Hence, the following: 11
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The case in Crime No.130 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) and JMFC, Arakalgud, Hassan District registered against the accused/petitioner by the Respondent No.1/Police is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE DH