Karnataka High Court
Sri Gurumalliah vs State By Keragodu P S on 1 July, 2021
Author: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3922 OF 2021
BETWEEN
1. Sri. Gurumalliah,
S/o. Poojari Maayigowda,
Aged about 68 years,
2. Smt. Sharadamma
W/o. Sri. Gurumalliah,
Aged about 49 years,
3. Sri. Manju K.M.,
S/o. Maayigowda,
Aged about 35 years,
4. Smt. Manujakshi,
W/o. Manju K.M.,
Aged about 30 years,
All are residents of
Karadikoppalu Village,
Keragodu Hobli, Mudaganduru Post,
Mandya District-571416.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. M.B.Hari Prasad, Advocate)
2
AND
1. State by Keragodu P.S.,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Sri. Nagesh P.,
S/o. Puttaswamegowda,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o. Karadikoppalu Village,
Keragodu Hobli,
Mandya District-571416.
...Respondents
(By Sri. Mahesh Shetty, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., praying to judgment in favour of petitioners by
quash the FIR filed by the Keragodu Police Station, i.e.,
respondent No.1, in Cr.No.53/2021 for the offence
punishable under Sections 506, 341, 323, 324, 504, 354,
448 read with 34 of IPC, pending proceedings on the file of
Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and C.J.M., Mandya at
Annexure-B.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this
day, through video conferencing, the Court made the
following:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the
petitioners are accused no. 1 to 4 in Cr.No.53/2021
registered at the instance of 2nd respondent in relation
to offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341,
354, 448, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. It is the argument of the petitioners' counsel
that the first petitioner lodged an FIR against the 2nd
respondent on 10.4.2020 and the same was
registered in Cr.No.52/2021. As a counter blast to the
first petitioner's FIR, the 2nd respondent resorted to
lodging an FIR against the petitioners alleging that an
incident of assault on them took place at about 6.00
p.m. on 11.4.2021. It is his argument that petitioner
no.3 and 4 are residents of Bengaluru and that they
were not at all present in the village when the incident
dated 11.4.2021 is said to have taken place. He
submits that registration of FIR is an abuse of process
of court and therefore it needs to be quashed.
3. If the FIR is read there are allegations
against the petitioners that on 11.4.2021 at about
6.00 p.m. all the petitioners are said to have gone
near the house of respondent no.2, abused them in
filthy language, assaulted them, trespassed into his
house and then tore the clothes of his wife and
mother. It may be a fact that there may be some
dispute between the two parties and that the 1st
petitioner might have lodged an FIR against
respondent no.2 in relation to the incident that
appears to have taken place on 10.4.2021. But it
cannot be said that the FIR lodged at the instance of
the 2nd respondent against the petitioners in relation
to offence on 11.4.2021 did not at all take place
merely on the say of the petitioners. The investigator
has to decide on the basis of the evidence that he
collects whether really an incident as alleged took
place on 11.4.2021. If the investigator finds that a
false complaint was made to take revenge against the
petitioners, definitely he will not file charge sheet
against the petitioners. If the petitioners 3 and 4 are
the residents of Bengaluru and were not present in the
village on 11.4.2021 at the time when the incident is
said to have taken place, they may place convincing
evidence before the investigator to take proper
decision. Therefore in a matter where investigation is
necessary, jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
cannot be exercised for quashing the proceedings.
Petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sd
