Sri Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1896 Kant

                              1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

                           BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

               CRIMINAL PETITION NO.422/2021

BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATESH,
S/O GANGADHARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.48, 5TH CROSS,
T.B. NARAYANAPURA LAYOUT,
OPP. TO FOREST OFFICE,
NEAR T.B. CIRLCE,
DODDABALLAPUR-561203.                          ... PETITIONER

            (BY SRI NARENDRA BABU B.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY D.B. PURA RURAL POLICE STATION,
       DODDABALLAPURA,
       REPRESENTED BY SPP,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU-560001.

2.     SMT RASHMI G,
       W/O RAVINDRA,
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
       NO.5/1, 5TH CROSS,
       T.B. NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT,
       T.B. CIRCLE, DODDABALLAPURA,
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.      ... RESPONDENTS

              (BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., HCGP FOR R-1;
               SRI V. VINOD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                                 2



      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2020 AND
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3107/2020 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL   CIVIL   JUDGE   AND     JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA
(ANNEXURES-A AND B) IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABOVE
CASE.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to quash the order dated 24.09.2020 and further

proceedings in C.C.No.3107/2020 on the file of the Principal Civil

Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura and grant such other reliefs as

deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent

No.2 had lodged a complaint dated 12.05.2020 with respondent

No.1 making the allegations against the petitioner that on

11.05.2020 in the evening when she was standing near her

house, he came in a car and made indecent sign and when the

complainant questioned the same, he abused in a filthy language

and came to assault her and she went inside the house and

closed the door. The complainant told him that she would lodge

the complaint and hence he threatened the complainant. After

20 minutes, he came along with his friends and abused and

threatened her. Based on the complaint, the police have

registered the case on 30.05.2020. On perusal of the original

complaint, an endorsement is made that they have conducted

preliminary enquiry and registered the case on 30.05.2020. The

police after the registration of the case, investigated the matter

and filed the charge-sheet. Hence, the present petition is filed

before this Court by the petitioner/accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the

notice of this Court photograph at Annexure-C wherein the

husband of the complainant had put up the construction illegally

and in this regard a compliant is given orally by the petitioner

herein. The CMC, Doddaballapura has issued notice against the

husband of the complainant on 24.01.2020, second notice was

issued on 10.02.2020 and third notice was issued on 16.05.2020

and ultimately on 16.05.2020 the CMC, Doddaballapura passed a

temporary order to remove the illegal structure put up by the

husband of the complainant. The police have also issued the

acknowledgment for having received the complaint from the

petitioner dated 21.05.2020, wherein the issuance of notice and

oral complaint made by the petitioner against the husband of the

complainant has been stated and no action was taken by the

police. However, the police have registered the case against the

petitioner based on the complaint of the wife of the person, who

had indulged in illegal activities. Hence, the learned counsel

would contend that it is a clear case of abuse by the police

wherein by taking the pre-dated complaint, case has been

registered on 30.05.2020.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of

his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court

passed in Criminal M.C. No.692/2014 dated 24.09.2018 in

the case of Hari Kishen Sharma v. State and another and

brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of

the judgment, wherein invoking of Sections 506 and 509 of IPC

is discussed and the Court held that the allegations made by the

prosecutrix of the offence under Section 506, 509 are as vague

as they can be. Prosecutrix has not stated as to what were the

words uttered or gestures, actions or threat extended which

would satisfy the requirement of Sections 506 and 509 IPC. The

learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that this

judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand and it is a clear

abuse of process.

5. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of

the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.138/2020 arising

out of SLP (Crl) No.3974/2018 in the case of Ahmad Ali

Quraishi and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and

another, wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to abuse

of process referring the judgment of the Apex Court in the case

of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others

and allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State would submit that

preliminary enquiry was conducted before registration of the

case and hence there was a delay in registering the case. The

complaint is given on 12.05.2020 and specific allegation is made

in the complaint regarding indecent signs made by the petitioner

herein and the police have also investigated the mater and filed

the charge-sheet citing eye-witnesses to the incident.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

respondent No.1 State and also on perusal of the material i.e.,

Annexures-C to H, it is clear that this petitioner had orally given

the complaint to CMC, Doddaballapura for illegal construction put

up by the husband of the complainant. Based on the complaint,

notices are issued against the husband of the complainant and

ultimately a temporary order has been passed to remove the

illegal construction put up by the husband of the complainant.

Annexure-H discloses that the complaint was given by the

petitioner before the CMC, Doddaballapura for illegal

construction put up by the husband of the complainant. This

complaint is nothing but off shoot of the complaint and the

notice issued against the husband of the complainant and

passing the order to remove the construction illegally put up by

the husband of the complainant. The police have also failed to

take note of the fact that the endorsement was issued in favour

of the petitioner, but the complaint is received against the

petitioner herein and on perusal of the complaint averments,

there is no any indecent signs made against the complainant and

the judgment of the Delhi High Court is aptly applicable to the

case on hand, wherein it is observed that in order to invoke

Section 509 and 506 of IPC, the prosecutrix has not stated as to

what were the words uttered or gestures, actions or threat

extended which would satisfy the requirement of Section 506

and 509 IPC. In the case on hand, no such indecent sign is

referred in the complaint. It is brought to the notice of this

Court that an allegation is made that after 20 minutes of the said

incident, the petitioner came along with other friends and abused

and threatened the complainant, but case is filed only against

the petitioner and no other accused are arraigned even though

there was an allegation in the complaint against others and there

is no any explanation also. Having taken note of the material

collected by the Investigating Officer, it is nothing but sheer

misuse of power vested with the police. It is a classic example

of how the police act based on the complaint in favour of the

persons who can manage the police people and it is an abuse of

process.

8. Having taken note of the material on record, it is a fit

case to give direction to the Superintendent of Police of

Bangalore Rural District or appropriate authority to enquire into

the matter regarding abuse of process by the Investigating

Officer in registering the case against a person who gives the

complaint with regard to violation in construction of illegal

structure and instead of taking action against the person who

has illegally put up the construction, registered the case against

the petitioner herein with an oblique motive and suppress the

voice of the petitioner herein. Hence, the Superintendent of

Police of Bangalore Rural District is directed to hold an enquiry

against the police officer, who indulged in registering false case

in abuse of his powers. Having considered the material on

record, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. If this Court does not exercise the power under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., it amounts to an abuse of process, which leads to

miscarriage of justice. Hence, the very initiation of the

proceedings against the petitioner herein requires to be

quashed.

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

      (ii)    The proceedings initiated against the petitioner
              herein     in     C.C.No.3107/2020          is   hereby
              quashed.

(iii) The concerned Superintendent of Police or appropriate authority is directed to initiate the proceedings against the Investigating Officer,

who conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet in clear abuse of process and submit the report taking the action before this Court within three months from today.

In view of allowing of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 for

stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands

disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD