"To quash the FIR and Complaint in Crime No.21/2022
pending before Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Pandavapura,
Mandya District for the offence punishable under Sections 143,
323, 327, 448, 504, 506, 149 of IPC (Annexure-A & B) in the
interest of justice."
NC: 2025:KHC:3761
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that
the petitioners are public servants working in the office of Tahsildar,
Pandavapura Taluk. On 11.01.2022, the Tahsildar, under whom
the petitioners are working had lodged a complaint which is
registered in Crime No.13/2022 against 10 accused persons who
are members of the KRS party alleging various offences as against
them. Subsequently, on 18.01.2022, the said Tahsildar filed one
more complaint which was registered as FIR in Cr.No.20/2022
alleging various offence against other party members of the said
KRS party.
4. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that as a
counter blast and in order to wreak vengeance as against the
petitioners as well as the Tahsildar, respondent No.2 who is also a
member of the aforesaid KRS party filed the instant complaint
which is registered in FIR in Crime No.21/2022 making false and
vexatious allegations against the petitioners, without any basis and
consequently the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.
NC: 2025:KHC:3761
5. It is also pointed out that subsequently other KRS party
members had filed complaints registered in FIR in Crime
No.27/2022 dated 24.01.2022 and FIR in Crime No.101/2022 dated
03.04.2022, making identical allegations, all of which have ended in
"B" report. It is therefore contended that continuation of the
proceedings qua against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of
process of law, warranting interference by this Court.
6. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader
submits that there is no merit in this case and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
7. Respondent No.2 having been served with notice of
this petition has not chosen to appear before this Court, remained
unrepresented and has not contested the petition.
8. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Joseph Kanthraj Vs. State of Karnataka
and Anr. in Crl.P.No.9944/2021.
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, even before the 2nd respondent filed the instant
complaint against petitioners on 19.01.2022, the Tahsildar under
NC: 2025:KHC:3761
whom the petitioners worked as public servants had already filed
police complaints registered in FIR in Crime No.13/2022 dated
11.01.2022 and Crime No.20/2022 dated 18.01.2022 against
members of KRS party. It is an undisputed fact borne out from the
material on record that 2nd respondent/complainant is also a
member of the aforesaid KRS party. Under identical circumstances
in relation to quashing of a complaint, which is filed by way of
counter blast to the complaints already given by a party, this Court
has held as under:
"xxxx
21. There can be no other inference that can be
drawn in the teeth of the link in the chain of the events. It
cannot but be held on a perusal of the complaint that it is
registered as a counter blast to wreak vengeance against the
petitioner notwithstanding the fact of detailed order passed
by this Court in the RFA (supra) holding that the document
executed on 11.06.1997 by J.Anthonyswamy was valid in the
eye of law. Therefore, the very substratum of the allegation
of forgery of the document on 11.06.1997 is effaced by the
order passed by this Court. If the substratum is taken away
by the order passed by this Court, a private complaint could
not have been registered on same allegation of forgery and
invoking Section 468 of IPC for the said purpose.
NC: 2025:KHC:3761
22. The other allegation is with regard to Section
420 of IPC. Section 420 of IPC deals with cheating.
Ingredients of which are found in Section 415 of IPC. Section
415 of IPC mandates that there has to be inducement on the
part of the accused upon the victim to part with some
property. The accused and the alleged victim in the case at
hand hold two different documents which is considered by
this Court in the said RFA. A dishonest intention by the
petitioner cannot be imagined even in the case at hand.
Therefore, it is clear case where the complainant registered
the complaint to arm-twist the petitioner or as a counter blast
to what has happened from 1997 to 2021.
23. The Apex Court in the case of VINEET KUMAR
& OTHERS. Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &
ANOTHER reported in 2017 (13) SCC 369 has held in
paragraph No.41 as follows:
"41. Inherent power given to the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose
and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn
process of Court is sought to be abused by a person
with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the
attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot
permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one
of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this
Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. Judicial
process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be
allowed to be converted into an instrument of
operation or harassment. When there are material
to indicate that a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as
NC: 2025:KHC:3761
enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,
which is to the following effect:
"(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."
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the
facts of the present case. Although, the High Court
has noted the judgment of the State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of
the present case, materials on which Final Report
was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied
that the present is a fit case where High Court ought
to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr. P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)
24. Later, the Apex Court in the case of VARALA
BHARATH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF
TELANGANA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 (9) SCC
413 has held as follows:
6. It is by now well settled that the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or inherent power under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can
be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent
abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. Where allegations made in the
first information report/the complaint or the
outcome of investigation as found in the charge-
sheet, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out the case
against the accused; where the allegations do not
disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged;
where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
first information report or complaint and the
material collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of offence alleged and
NC: 2025:KHC:3761
make out a case against the accused; 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, the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised.
7. While exercising power under Section 482 or
under Article 226 in such matters, the court does not
function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code though
wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully or with
caution and only when such exercise is justified by
the tests specifically laid down under Section 482
itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real
and substantial justice, for the administration of which
alone courts exist. The court must be careful and see
that its decision in exercise of its power is based on
sound principles. The inherent powers should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Of course,
no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to
cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings
at any stage."
(Emphasis supplied)
25. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand as are
narrated and considered hereinabove, are cut on the
touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in
the afore-quoted judgments, it becomes a classic case
where the complaint is a product of these principles that are
laid down by the Apex Court i.e, a counter blast or to wreak
vengeance.
26. Permitting further proceedings to continue in
the case at hand notwithstanding the fact that it is at the
NC: 2025:KHC:3761
stage of crime/investigation would be putting a premium on
the narration in the complaint, which can by no stretch of
imagination stand the scrutiny of law, this would become a
abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of
justice.
27. For the reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. Proceedings pending in Crime
No.574/2021 (arising out of PCR
No.55268/2021) before the XI Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru,
against the petitioner, stand quashed.
iii. It is made clear that the observations
made in the course of the order would not
come in the way of any pending
proceedings or proceedings to be initiated
other than the one considered in the case
at hand, between the parties.
I.A.Nos.1/2022 is disposed, as a consequence."
8. As stated supra, apart from the fact that the Tahsildar
under whom the petitioners worked had already filed two
complaints prior to the instant complaint dated 19.01.2022, the
subsequent complaints given by other KRS party members have
culminated in 'B' report. Under these circumstances, in the facts
and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3761
opinion that continuation of the instant proceedings against the
petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting
interference by this Court in the present petition.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.21/2022
on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC,
Pandavapura, Mandya District, for the offence
punishable under Sections 143, 323, 327, 448,
504, 506, 149 of IPC stand quashed qua insofar
as the petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
RR
