Bangalore District Court
M Hemananda vs Prakash Arekal. R on 14 July, 2025
KABC030208722024
IN THE COURT OF XLVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
PRESENT : LOKESHA. C.N, M.A., LL.,B.
XLVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.
C.C.No.12736/2024
14th day of July 2025
Complainant: Sri.M. Hemananda
S/o. S. Mahesh Kumar
Aged about 32 years
R/o. 341B, 17th Cross
R.R Nagar, Bengaluru-98 And
Permanent Address at No.35,
Panchamukhi Building, 5th Cross
LIC Colony, 3rd Block, Jayanagar
Bangaluru-560 011.
(By Sri. Anil Kumar.C, Advocate)
V/s
Accused: 1. Prakash Arekal.R
A/a 61 years
R/o. Ramashree Nilaya Market Road
Birur, Chickmagalur, Kadur
Karnataka-577116.
2
C.C. No.12736/2024
2. Sanjay Arekal Prakash
A/a 28 years
R/o. Ramashree Nilaya Market Road
Birur, Chickmagalur, Kadur
Karnataka-577116.
(By H.R. Manjunath Advocate )
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C to prosecute and punish the accused persons for the alleged offence punishable Under Section 211 of IPC.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that, the accused No.1 and 2 had given a complaint against the complainant to Rajarajeshwari Nagara police station alleging that, a unknown person on 10.03.2022 at about 6.00 pm near Rajarajeshwari temple, R.R.Nagara Bangalore, wrongfully restrained the accused No.1 and 2 and mentioning the name of the complainant abused them with filthy language assaulted them and gave life threat. Based on said complaint the police have registered an FIR in Cr.No.61/2022 for the offence punishable under section 341, 323, 3 C.C. No.12736/2024 504, 506 R/w section 34 of IPC against the complainant and another unknown person. The accused persons have lodged false complaint alleging false charges of offence against the complainant with an intention to cause injury to the complainant. After registration of FIR the complainant has obtained the CC.TV footage of the police station and came to know that on 10.03.2022 at 6.07 pm the accused No.1 and 2 entered the R.R.Nagara police station and gave false information against the complainant. As per the alleged complaint, the alleged incident was occurred at 6.00 p.m, but as per the CC T.V footage at 6.07 pm the accused No.1 and 2 were in police station. Therefore the accused No.1 and 2 have lodged false complaint against the complainant with an intention to cause injury to the complainant. Then the complainant approached the Jurisdictional police, but the police have not taken any action against the accused persons. Hence, the complainant came with the present complaint seeking prosecute and punish the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 211 of IPC.
3. After presenting the complaint, this court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 211 of IPC and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and come to 4 C.C. No.12736/2024 conclusion that there is no material to proceed against the accused No. 3 to 5, and ordered to registered a criminal case against the accused No. 1 and 2 only. Then summons were issued to the accused No. 1 and 2. Pursuant to the service of the same, the accused No. 1 and 2 appeared before the court and obtained bail. Thereafter substance of accusation read-over to the accused No. 1 and 2. The accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was set down for trial.
4. In order to prove the offence alleged against the accused No. 1 and 2, the complainant examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P.51 and closed his side evidence. After closing of the evidence of complainant, the statement of the accused No. 1 and 2 was recorded as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No. 1 and 2 have denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them and did not choose to lead defense evidence.
5. Thereafter, heard the arguments from both sides and perused the material on record.
5
C.C. No.12736/2024
6. Under the fact and circumstances of the case the following points would arise for consideration.
POINTS
Point No.1: Whether the complainant
proves that the accused persons with intent to cause injury to him given false information to police, knowing that there is no lawful ground for said information and committed an offence punishable Under Section 211 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point No.2: What order?
7. My findings to the above points are as follows :
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per the final order, for the following :REASONS:
Points No.1 :-
8. As could be seen from the averments made in the complaint, it is the case of the complainant that, the accused No. 1 and 2 with an intention to cause injury to the complainant lodged false complaint alleging false charge against the complainant by alleging that on 10.03.2022 at about 6.00 pm when the accused 6 C.C. No.12736/2024 No. 1 and 2 were going to Rajarajeshwari temple, a unknown person wrongfully restrained them and referring the name of complainant as his friend, abused them with filthy language, assaulted by hands and gave life thereat. Then the accused No. 1 and 2 have lodged a complaint before R.R.Nagar police. The police have registered an FIR in Cr.No.61/2022 for the offence punishable under section 341, 323, 504, 506 R/w section 34 of IPC against the complainant and another unknown person. When the complainant verify the CC TV footage of police station, he came to know that the accused No.1 and 2 were present at police station at 6.07 pm, therefore the question of alleged incident does not arise and the accused persons intentionally to cause injury to the complainant made false charge of offence against the complainant.
9. In order to prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as Pw.1 and deposed evidence in consonance with the complaint averments and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P51. The complainant has produced the copy of alleged information given by the accused No. 1 and 2 to the police as per Ex.P1 and also copy of FIR as per Ex.P2. It is the case of the complainant that the Ex.P1 is false information given by the accused No. 1 and 2 to 7 C.C. No.12736/2024 the police and made false charge against the complainant with an intention to cause injury to the complainant.
10. As against the evidence adduced by the complainant, the defense that has been taken by the accused persons that on 10.03.2022 at about 6.00 pm when the accused No. 1 and 2 were coming from Rajarajeshwari temple, a unknown person wrongfully restrained them and abused them with filthy language by referring the name of the complainant as his friend and assaulted them and gave life thereat. Therefore the accused No.1 went to the police station and given information regarding incident against the unknown person. The complainant is the Son-In-Law of the accused No.1, there was so many cases are pending between the complainant and accused persons, the daughter of accused No. 1 has filed a complaint against the complainant alleged cruelty and domestic violence. Therefore the complainant has filed false case against the accused No. 1 and 2.
11. On the perusal of the entire records and oral evidence of the parties, it appears that the complainant is the husband of the daughter of the accused No.1 and sister of the accused No.2. There 8 C.C. No.12736/2024 was matrimonial dispute between the daughter of the accused No.1 and and complainant. So many cases are pending between the parties. It is also not at in dispute that on 10.03.2022 the accused No.1 lodged a compliant before R.R.Nagar police as per Ex.P1 alleging that at about 6.00 pm, a unknown person wrongfully restrained them, and by referring the name of the complainant as his friend abused them with filthy language, assaulted them with hands and gave life thereat. By receiving said information the R.R.Nagar police have registered an FIR as per Ex.P2 against the complainant and another unknown person. In the present case after registration of FIR, complainant had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Cr.P.No.5304/2022 to quash FIR in Cr.No.61/2022. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed said petition and quashed the FIR in Cr.No.61/2022 against the present complainant only. The complainant has produced said copy of order as per Ex.P50.
12. It is the contention of the complainant that the accused No.1 and 2 have lodged false complaint against the complainant and another person by stating that the alleged incident was occurred at 6.00 pm. But as per the CC TV footage, the accused 9 C.C. No.12736/2024 No. 1 and 2 were in police station at 6.07 pm, therefore the alleged incident was false and the accused No.1 and 2 lodged false complaint against the complainant. The complainant has produced the photograph of CCTV footage as per Ex.P7 to P10 and P41 to P47. In the present case the accused No. 1 and 2 have not at all disputed said documents and also their presence at police station on 10.03.2022 at 6.07 pm. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued before the court that though no incident was occurred as stated in the Ex.P1, the accused No.1 and 2 lodged false complaint against the complainant alleging that, incident was occurred at 6.00 pm, but at 6.07 pm the accused persons were present at police station, therefore at the same time the accused persons cannot present in two different places. But it is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused No. 1 and 2 that, as per Ex.P1, the alleged was occurred at about or around 6.00 pm and not exactly 6.00 pm and moreover the distance between the place of incident and police station is only 1.5 Kilometer and need only 5 to 10 minutes to reach the police station, therefore based on the CC TV footage of the police station, it cannot be said that the contents of Ex.P1 is false. Moreover there are so many cases are pending between the parties and due to enmity to cause inconvenience to 10 C.C. No.12736/2024 accused No1 and 2, the complainant has filed this false case. During the course of cross examination, the learned counsel for accused confronted two documents as per Ex. D1 and D2.
13. As per the Ex.P1, it is mentioned that incident was occurred around 6.00 pm. The accused No.1 did not mention exact time of the incident and it is mentioned that at about or around 6.00 pm. Though in the Ex.P2 FIR, it is mentioned that occurrence of offence from 6.00 to 6.10 pm, but in the Ex.P1 it is mentioned that said information received at 6.45 pm. Therefore based on Ex.P2, FIR it cannot said that the incident was occurred exactly at 6.00 pm. Moreover as per Ex.P2, the distance between the place of incident and the police station is only 1.5 kilometers. Therefore if the incident was occurred at about 6.00 pm, it will take maximum 5 to 10 minutes to reach the police station.
14. The complainant has filed the present complaint for the alleged offence punishable under section 211 of IPC against the accused No. 1 and 2. It is the contention of the complainant, that the accused No.1 and 2 with an intention to cause injury to the complainant made false charges against the complainant and 11 C.C. No.12736/2024 lodged compliant as per Ex.P1. But on the perusal of the Ex.P1, it clearly appears that there is no any allegation or charges against the present complainant in the Ex.P1. As per the contents of Ex.P1, a unknown person came near the accused No. 1 and 2 and wrongfully restrained them and by mentioning the name of the present complainant as his friend he abused them with filthy language, assaulted them by hands and gave life thereat. Except said allegation there is no any allegation of any offence against the complainant in Ex.P1. No doubt based on Ex.P1 the police have registered the FIR as per Ex.P2 including the present complainant, though there is no any allegation against the present complainant. Therefore based on said fact, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the FIR against the present complainant on the ground that there is no incriminating material in the complaint against the complainant. After quashing of FIR against the present complainant, the investigation officer having the completed the investigation filed 'C' Final Report by stating that, though they have made effort, said unknown person not traced. The complainant himself has produced said 'C' Final report as per Ex.P51. As per Ex.P51, there is no any finding of investigation officer that incident was not occurred. But it is the finding of the investigation officer 12 C.C. No.12736/2024 that though sufficient efforts have been made, they could not able to trace the said unknown person. Therefore as per Ex.P51 also it is the finding of the investigation officer that on 10.03.2022 the alleged incident was occurred but they could not able to traced the unknown person, hence the investigation officer filed 'C' Final Report in Cr.No.61/2022. Therefore it cannot be said that the information given by the accused No.1 to the police as per Ex.P1 is false.
15. As per Section 211 of IPC, the essential ingredients for invoking section 211 of IPC are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence. The complainant at the time of giving the complaint must have know that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person. This complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person. But in the present case the accused No.1 has given compliant against unknown person and not against the complainant alleging that said unknown person by mentioning the name of the complainant, wrongfully restrained them, abused them with filthy language and assaulted them. It is not the case of the accused No. 1 and 2 as per Ex.P1 that, the complainant committed said alleged offence. Therefore on the perusal of the 13 C.C. No.12736/2024 Ex.P1, it appears that there is no any allegation against the complainant for the commission of alleged offence by the accused persons.
16. The Ld Counsel for the complainant argued that the accused No.1 and 2 did not lead any evidence and not explained anything about the appears of unknown person and how the accused persons came near the Rajarajeshwari temple and how they came to Bangalore, therefore the burden is on the accused No. 1 and 2 to explain said facts, since said facts within the knowledge of the accused No. 1 and 2. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on the Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl. Appeal. No.1669/2012 between State of Madya Pradesh V/s Balveer Singh and Crl. Appeal. No.815/2022 between Ashok Verma V/s State of Chhattisgarh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, if the prosecution has succeeded in proving fact from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. But in the present case, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused No.1 and 2 made false charge against the complainant to 14 C.C. No.12736/2024 cause injury. Therefore the question of draw different inference or explanation from the accused persons does not arise. Therefore the ratio of above Judgments not applicable to the facts of the present case.
17. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ petition (Criminal) No.103/2009 between Himanshu Kumar and Others V/s State of Chhattisgarh and Others, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, the essential ingredients for invoking section 211 of Indian Penal Code that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence. The complainant at the time of giving the complaint must have know that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person. This complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person. But in the present case the accused persons lodged a complaint against the a unknown person by alleging that said unknown person wrongfully restrained them, then abused them with filthy language, assaulted them and gave life thereat by referring the name of the complainant as his friend. Therefore as per the contents of Ex.P1 there is no any charge or allegation of offence against the present 15 C.C. No.12736/2024 complainant by the accused persons. Therefore the question of making false charge against the complainant in the Ex.P1 does not arise. On the perusal of the Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P50 and Ex.P51, it appears that the accused No.1 and 2 made allegation against a unknown person only and there is no any specific allegation or charges against the present complainant. Therefore the complainant has failed to prove that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offences punishable under Section 211 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the Negative.
18. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
:O R D E R:
Exercising the power under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable Under Section 211 of I.P.C.
( The bail bond and surety bond of the accused No. 1 and 2 stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, computerized by her corrected by me and then pronounced the judgment in the open court on 14th day of July 2025.) (LOKESHA.C.N) 46th Addl.C.J.M.,Bengaluru.
16
C.C. No.12736/2024 :ANNEXURE:
The witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1 : - M. Hemananda The documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.3 : Application of Form- A Ex.P.4 : Application of model form of second appeal Ex.P.5 : Reminder application Ex.P.6 : RPAD Cover Ex.P.7 to 12: Photos Ex.P.13 : CD Ex.P.14 : Pen-drive Ex.P.15 to 22: Copies of Complaints Ex.P.23 : Receipt Ex.P.24 : Request to provide permission letter Ex.P.25 : Acknowledgment Ex.P.26 : RPAD Cover Ex.P.27 : RTI application Letter Ex.P.28 & 29: Inquiry report of complaint application Ex.P.30 : RPAD Cover Ex.P.31 : Online RTI Request Form Details Ex.P.32 : Copy of 65 'B' Certificate Ex.P.33 : RTI Application reference letter Ex.P.34 : RPAD Cover Ex.P.35 : RTI Application 17 C.C. No.12736/2024 Ex.P.36 : RPAD Cover Ex.P.37 : Request letter Right to Information Act 2005 Ex.P.38 : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Ex.P.39 : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Ex.P.40 : RPAD letter Ex.P.41 to 47: Photos Ex.P.48 : Pen-drive Ex.P.49 : PCR.No.2074/2023 Ex.P.50 : Crl.P.No.5304/2022 Ex.P.51 : Charge Sheet. The witnesses examined for the defense: - NIL -
List of material objects marked for the prosecution:
- NIL -
The witnesses and documents exhibited for the defense:
Ex.D.1 : Copy of Order Sheet in MC.No.3894/2020
Ex.D.2 : Copy of Order in MC.No.3894/2020
Digitally signed by
LOKESHA LOKESHA C N
CN Date: 2025.07.21
17:12:07 +0530
(LOKESHA.C.N)
46th Addl.C.J.M.,Bengaluru.