Mr. M Praveen Kumar vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1525 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

                         BEFORE

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

                  CRL.P.No.4730/2020

BETWEEN:

MR. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR,
S/O M.N.MALLIKARJUNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT No.12/5, 1ST FLOOR,
1ST CROSS, CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 040.
                                    ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.V.NISHANTH, ADV.)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
       WOMEN POLICE STATION,
       CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
       REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     MRS. PAVITHRA.M.K.
       W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR.M.
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
       R/AT BALEHALLI VILLAGE,
       CHIKKAMAGALURU,
       KARNATAKA - 577 101.         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH.B.G., HCGP FOR R-1,
   SRI. I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA,, ADV. FOR R-2)
                              2



     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR
IN CR.N.9/2020 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKMAGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-A.

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

                         ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent No.1/State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the FIR registered in

Crime No.09/2020 for the offences punishable under

Section 498A, 504, 323, 343, 506 of IPC.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the 2nd

respondent has filed a complaint before the police

making the allegation against the petitioner subjecting

her for cruelty, abuse, assault, confinement and causing

life threat. Based on the complaint, the respondent No.1-

Police has registered the FIR in Crime No.09/2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

contend that the petitioner gave the complaint prior to

this complaint on 21.01.2020 to Karnataka State Human

Rights Commission, Bengaluru and another complaint

dated 01.02.2020 in favour of the Office of the

Superintendent Police. The petitioner also issued a legal

notice on 06.02.2020. On 18.02.2020, the reply was

given to the said notice. Thereafter, the present

complaint is filed. The very complaint is afterthought of

the complaint given by the petitioner herein with

malafide intention against the petitioner. Hence, it is an

abuse of process and it leads to miscarriage of justice.

Hence, it requires interference of this Court to invoke

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for

respondent No.1/State would submit that the complaint

averment is specific with regard to the offences which

have been invoked. The Court has to look into the

contents of the complaint and the complaint prima facie

discloses the offences.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.1/State and also looking into the

contents of the complaint, the specific allegation is made

with regard to the harassment as well as subjecting her

in confinement and also assault. The judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DINESHBHAI

CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104, has summarized the

principles as to how to deal with regard to the context of

challenge to FIR. The Apex Court in its judgment held

that the investigating officer has to investigate when the

allegations are made and once the Court finds that the

FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any

cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the

investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to

unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure

prescribed in the Cr.P.C.

7. Having considered the principles laid down in

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and perused the

contents of the complaint, it is not a fit case to exercise

the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected.

Petitioner is given liberty to approach this Court if

need arises after filing of the final report.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KTY