S Mohan Kumar vs State By R T Nagar Police Station
2021 Latest Caselaw 1779 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                          BEFORE

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

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6098/2020

BETWEEN:

S. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O SHESHMALJI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NO.18, HUNTERS ROAD
CHOOLAI, CHENNAI-600114.                   ... PETITIONER

               (BY SRI SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     STATE BY
       R.T.NAGAR POLICE STATION
       REPRESENTED BY SPP
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU-560021

2.     D. SHANKAR
       S/O V. DHARMAN
       NO.51, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS
       P AND T COLONY, R.T. NAGAR
       BENGALURU-560032.                  ... RESPONDENTS

         (BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G.,HCGP FOR R1;
           SRI R.ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.74/2020
                                  2



REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, R.T.NAGAR POLICE
STATION, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE 32ND ACMM,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 341 AND 504 OF IPC.

     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 FIR in Crime No.74/2020 registered by

R.T.Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 341, 504, 506 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent

No.2 herein had lodged a complaint on 01.03.2020 against the

petitioner herein making the allegation that he is running

Poornima Enterprises and in respect of BTM Layout property

availed finance to the tune of Rs.3 Crores and also entered into a

sale agreement in respect of 7 flats as guarantor. It is also

alleged in the complaint that the petitioner herein, no way

concerned to any transaction. However, he is making phone call

and causing threat to him. That on 04.01.2020 at 2:00 p.m.

when he was in the office, the petitioner/Mohan Kumar and 10

persons suddenly barged into his office and abused him in a

filthy language and in spite of it he demanded, he will not give

the money and he will teach a lesson to him and also caused a

life threat. It is also an allegation in the complaint that he took

7 cheques belongs to Ujjivan Small Finance Bank and also took

empty letter head. When the same was questioned by the

complainant and again he pulled him and took the same and

caused the life threat. Based on this complaint, the police have

registered a case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently contend that a complaint was given on

01.03.2020 and the alleged incident was taken place on

04.01.2020 and there was a delay of 56 days in lodging a

complaint. The learned counsel also would submit that there

was a transaction between the petitioner and also the

respondent and in this regard, a cheque was given and the

cheque was dishonoured. Hence, a criminal complaint was filed

against the petitioner herein and the same was numbed as

C.C.No.8801/2019 invoking an offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act' for short).

The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the

complaint given to DG & IGP on 18.02.2020 against the

complainant/respondent No.2 herein, wherein, the complaint set

out the details of the transaction and also the cheques are given.

The present complaint is nothing but an off-shoot of Annexure

'C' and Annexure 'D' and a false complaint is filed against the

petitioner herein. Hence, it is nothing but an abuse of process

and it requires an interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for respondent No.1/State would submit that based on

the complaint, FIR is registered and the offences invoked against

the petitioner is for the offences punishable under Sections 341,

504, 506 of IPC. The learned counsel also would submit that

during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer also

recorded the statement of Smt.Poornima, who also reiterates the

complaint averments before the Investigating Officer. The matter

is under investigation and the same has to be investigated and

there are no grounds to quash the proceedings by invoking

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. Having heard the arguments of the respective

counsel, when the petitioner has sought for an order of quashing

of the FIR, the Court has to look into the contents of the

complaint. Having perused the contents of the complaint, a

specific allegation is made in the complaint that the incident was

taken place on 04.01.2020 and an allegation is that he was

wrongfully restrained in the office and caused the life threat and

insisted him to make the payment, if he does not make the

payment he would teach a lesson to him. Apart from that, an

allegation is also made that the cheques were also taken from

the custody and then he objected for the same and again he

pulled him, abused him and caused the life threat.

6. When such allegations are made in the complaint,

the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of DINESHBHAI

CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT reported in

2018 (3) SCC 104, held that, in order to examine as to

whether factual contents of FIR disclose any prima facie

cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act like an

investigating agency and nor can exercise powers like an

Appellate Court. The question is required to be examined,

keeping in view, contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any,

requiring no proof. At such stage, High Court cannot appreciate

evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR

and material relied on. It is more so, when the material relied

on is disputed. In such a situation, it becomes the job of

investigating authority, at such stage, to probe and then of the

Court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along

with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can

be placed on such material. Once the Court finds that 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. The Court has to look into the contents of the

complaint and principles are summarized with regard to the

contents of the FIR. No doubt, the learned counsel has brought

to the notice of this Court annexures 'C' and 'D', wherein, the

case has been initiated against the complainant herein and the

very contention that the present complaint is an off-shoot of 138

proceedings initiated against the respondent herein and also a

complaint was lodged before the DG & IGP and the documents

show the same was dispatched on 19.02.2020 and no document

is placed before the Court for having taken any action based on

the complaint dated 18.02.2020. The Investigating officer has to

probe whether any material to file a final report or to file 'B'

report and the High Court should not venture to restrain the

Investigating Officer when the law was set in motion based on

the averments made in the complaint. Hence, at this stage, I do

not find any material to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash

the proceedings. The Investigating Officer has to probe and

unearth the crime during the course of the investigation.

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

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is rejected.

(ii) However, liberty is given to the learned counsel for the petitioner to approach this Court if need arises after filing of final report.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*