Karnataka High Court

Jameer Ahmed And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 15 June, 2022

Bench: M G Uma

                           1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

       CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200227/2022


Between:

1.   Jameer Ahmed
     S/o Shekh Gudusab Chincholi,
     Aged about: 63 years,
     Occ: Agriculture,

2.   Firoz Ahmed
     S/o Jameer Ahmed Chincholi,
     Aged about: 35 years,
     Occ: Agriculture,

3.   Afroz Ahmed
     S/o Jameer Ahmed Chincholi,
     Aged about: 36 years,
     Occ: Agriculture,

4.   Abdul Gani @ Ganisab
     S/o Hussain Sab Koravi,
     Aged about: 59 years,
     Occ: Agriculture,

5.   Allabhaksha
     S/o Abdul Gani @ Ganisab Koravi,
     Aged about: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture,

6.   Mohammed Mosa Mustafa
                                2




       S/o Abdul Gani @ Ganisab Koravi,
       Aged about: 20 years, Occ: Student,

       All are R/at: Kalagurti Village,
       Tq: Kalagi, Dist: Kalaburagi-585105.
                                               ... Petitioners
(By Sri B.C.Jaka, Advocate)

And:
1.     The State of Karnataka
       Through Madbool Police Station,
       Kalaburagi-585105.
       Now represented by Addl. SPP,
       High Court of Karnataka,
       Kalaburagi Bench-585107.

2.     Smt. Sunita W/o Ramachandra @
       Ramshetty Rathod, Age: 53 years,
       Occ: Coolie/Household,
       R/at: Kalagurti Village, Tq: Kalagi,
       Dist: Kalaburagi-585105.
                                              ... Respondents
(By Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, HCGP for R1;
 Sri Ananth S. Jahagirdar, Advocate for
 Sri Ganesh S. Kalburgi, Advocate for R2)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow this petition and be pleased to
quash the charge sheet in Crime No.10/2021 registered by
the respondent Madbool Police against the petitioners
(SP/SC/ST.No.23/2021, pending on the file of II-Additional
District and Sessions Court Kalaburagi) for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 354,
504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections
3(1)(r)(s)(w)&(i) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.

      This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court passed the following:
                                3




                          ORDER

The petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to

6 are before this Court invoking inherent power of this

Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the

criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime

No.10/2021 of Madbool Police Station, Kalaburagi District,

which is now pending in Special Case (SC/ST) No.23/2021

on the file of II-Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of

the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and Section

3(1)(r)(s)(w) & (i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the

Act').

2. Brief facts of the case are that informant-

respondent No.2 lodged first information with Madbool

Police Station on 11.01.2021 against accused Nos.1 to 6

stating that on 10.01.2021 she sowed Toordal in 7.38

acres of land in Sy.No.208/1 and 4 acres of land in

Sy.No.208/2, which were purchased by her. In the

meantime, the accused illegally trespassed into the land

after getting the temporary injunction from the Court,

behind her back. When the said act was questioned by the

informant, the accused abused her and on the same day,

at about 11.15 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 6 forming

themselves into an unlawful assembly, all of a sudden,

came and assaulted the informant with stone and club and

caused grievous injuries on her head, forehead and all

over the body. They have also abused her in filthy

language referring to her caste as 'Lamani'. In the

meantime, passersby came and pacified the situation and

she was shifted to District Hospital, Kalaburagi, for

treatment. It is also stated that even though temporary

injunction was granted, the same was expired on

31.01.2021 and therefore, as on the date of the incident,

there was no temporary injunction operating in favour of

the accused. Therefore, she requested the police to

the police have registered the case and took up

investigation. It is stated that after investigation charge

sheet came to be filed against all the accused for the

above said offences and now the matter is pending before

the Trial Court in Special Case (SC/ST) No.23/2021.

3. The petitioners have approached this Court

seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against

them.

4. Heard Sri B.C.Jaka, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and

Sri Ananth S. Jahagirdar, learned counsel for Sri Ganesh S.

Kalburgi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused

the materials on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that there is a civil dispute between the parties. 4 acres of

land in Sy.No.208/2 is belonging to the petitioners.

Respondent No.2 and her husband used to claim the land

on the basis of the alleged agreement for sale said to have

been executed on 29.03.2003. Therefore, a suit in

O.S.No.69/2019 was filed seeking declaration and

injunction in respect of the said land. The Trial Court

granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners.

Till today, no suit seeking specific performance of contract

of the alleged agreement for sale dated 29.03.2003 is

filed. Moreover, husband of the informant along with his

friend criminally intimidated and trespassed into the land

and therefore, a separate criminal case was registered

against them, with Madbool Police Station, which is

registered in Crime No.61/2020 for the offences punishable

under Sections 506, 341, 504, 447 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

Even the charge sheet is filed against them.

6. He further submitted that according to the first

information all the six accused have assaulted the

informant with stone and club and caused bleeding

injuries. But, the wound certificate does not support such

contention. As per the wound certificate, there were only

two simple injuries, that too minor abrasions. However,

she got admitted to the hospital on 10.01.2021 and

discharged on 14.01.2021. But, strangely endorsement of

the SHO who received the first information on 11.01.2021

states that the informant physically appeared and filed first

information. Therefore, it is clear that a false complaint

came to be filed by the informant against the petitioners

only to pressurize them to give up their right over the

land. Since there are no prima facie materials to

constitute any of the offences and prima facie it is shown

that false allegations are made against the petitioners,

criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. Accordingly,

he prays for allowing the petition.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for

respondent No.2-complainant opposing the petition

submitted that the petitioners have executed an

agreement for sale dated 29.03.2003 and the possession

was also handed over to the purchaser. Therefore, the

informant and her husband were in possession of the land.

The temporary injunction was obtained behind their back

and the same was challenged before the appellate Court.

A false complaint was filed by the petitioners against the

husband of the informant only to pressurize them to give

up their claim over the land. Even though several grounds

were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, they

are to be considered by the Trial Court at the time of trial.

If the petitioners found innocent, they will be entitled for

acquittal, but they are not entitled for an order of quashing

the criminal proceedings. Hence, they pray for dismissing

the petition as devoid of merits.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-

complainant placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others

vs. Bhajan Lal and others contended that when prima

facie materials are placed before the Court, the criminal

proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be

quashed.

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

9. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed invoking inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for

the following:

REASONS

10. The informant lodged the first information on

11.01.2021 against the accused, specifically stating that

she sowed Toordal in the land bearing Sy.No.208/1 and

Sy.No.208/2 situated at Kalagurthi village. The accused

illegally trespassed into the land after getting the

temporary injunction from the Court behind her back.

When the said act was questioned by the informant, at

that time, all the accused assaulted her with stone and

club, causing bleeding injuries all over her body and

abused her in a filthy language by referring to her caste

and humiliated her. Thereafter, she went to her house and

informed about the incident to her husband. Immediately,

she was taken to Kalaburagi District Government Hospital,

where she took treatment. The wound certificate of the

informant is produced by the learned counsel for the

petitioners. As per the wound certificate, the informant

was admitted to GIMS Hospital, Kalaburagi on 10.01.2021

and discharged on 14.01.2021. She had sustained two

injuries i.e., minor abrasion on left forearm and injury to

head (H/o loss of consciousness for 5 minutes). However,

the CT Scan and X-ray reports were normal and both the

injuries are described as simple injuries. If this wound

certificate and nature of injuries are considered in the light

of the allegations made in the first information, the

allegations do not get any support. But on the other hand,

it appears that there is deliberate exaggeration.

11. As per the first information, the informant

herself personally present before the SHO in Madbool

Police Station, Kalaburagi and presented the first

information on 11.01.2021 at about 10:00 p.m. But the

wound certificate referred to above states that she was

admitted in GIMS Hospital, Kalaburagi on 10.01.2021 and

was inpatient till 14.01.2021. The date of discharge is

specifically stated as 14.01.2021. There is no explanation

by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 as to how the

informant could be present before the SHO to present the

first information on 11.01.2021 at about 10:00 p.m.

12. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have

filed O.S.No.69/2019 in respect of Sy.No.208/2 of

Kalagurthi Village, seeking declaration and injunction

against the husband of the informant, who lodged the first

information against the accused. It is also not in dispute

that the temporary injunction was granted by the trial

Court vide order dated 13.02.2020. Even though it is

contended that the said order is challenged before the

Appellate Court, learned counsel for respondent No.2

admitted that there is no stay nor there is an order to

maintain status-quo. When such an order of either stay or

order to maintain status-quo is not in operation, there is

absolutely no explanation by the respondents as to how

the informant claim that she was sowing the land in

question on 10.01.2021.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2

contended that the land in question was purchased by the

informant under an agreement for sale said to have been

executed on 29.03.2003. Therefore, the informant and her

family members are in possession of the same. The said

agreement is not produced before this Court. Admittedly,

no suit is filed seeking specific performance of the contract

till today. On the other hand, the petitioners have

produced the FIR in Crime No.61/2020 of Madbool Police

Station, Kalaburagi, registered against the husband of the

informant and his friend for the offences punishable under

Sections 506, 341, 504, 447 r/w Section 34 of IPC and this

was registered on 16.06.2020.

14. Even though no enquiry is required to be

conducted by this Court while exercising the inherent

jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the

glaring discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel

for the petitioners, which is discussed above, did not get

any answer to convince the Court about the prima-facie

case.

15. Taking cognizance and prosecuting a person is

a serious business. A person who is accused for

commission of offence is required to appear before the

Court and stand for trial to prove his innocence. When

there are glaring and unexplained discrepancies, which

have discussed above, it would be safe to state that the

first information was deliberately filed to pressurize the

petitioners since there is civil suit pending and the

temporary injunction is granted in their favour. The

discrepancies discussed above apparently disclose that an

attempt is made to wreck vengeance against the

petitioners, by invoking the provisions of the special

enactment. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal

proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be

quashed.

16. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-

complainant placed reliance on the Bhajan Lal's case

(supra) where at Paragraph No.108 of the judgment, the

Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the principles of law

enunciated and interpretation the provisions of law relating

to exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article

226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

and several illustrations where such power could be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any

Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Sl.Nos.5

and 7 in Paragraph No.108 in Bhajan Lal's case (supra)

passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court read as under:

            "108.     In        the        backdrop    of   the
       interpretation      of     the        various   relevant

provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under

Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the

proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/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."

17. Even though the inherent jurisdiction of this

Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised

sparingly to quash the criminal proceedings, the

discussions held in above paragraphs disclose that the

criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is

definitely an abuse of process of the Court and quashing of

the criminal proceedings will secure the ends of justice.

18. The discrepancies highlighted by the

petitioners go to the root of the matter, which has no

prima-facie explanation at this stage. Hence, I am of the

opinion that the criminal proceedings is liable to be

quashed in the interest of justice.