Sri Eregowda vs State By Arakalgud Police Station
2021 Latest Caselaw 7 Kant

                           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

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

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

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

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".

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....."

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:

"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:

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