Karnataka High Court
Sri Joseph Kanthraj vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9944 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI JOSEPH KANTHRAJ
S/O LATE FRANCIS KARUNAKARAN
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2, SOUTH
2ND CROSS, OIL MILL ROAD
MAURTHISEVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 084
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BANASAWADI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU -560 043
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
BENGALURU-560 001
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA 2. SMT S NASRUTHUNISSA BEGUM
D/O LATE SYED SIRAJUDDIN
W/O LATE ABDULLA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1040/B 12TH CROSS
UMMARNAGAR GOVINDAPURA
ARABIC COLLEGE POST
BENGALURU-560 045
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. G.S.RAJESH, ADV. FOR R2)
-2-
CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR DATED 04.12.2021 AND PRIVATE COMPLAINT
DATED 29.11.2021 IN CR.NO.574/2021 (ARISING OUT OF PCR
NO.55268/2021) AGAINST THIS PETITIONER, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.420 AND
468 OF IPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the FIR registered on 04.12.2021 in Crime No.574/2021 arising out of PCR No.55268/2021 registered by the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Amar Correa appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.G.S.Rajesh representing respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief germane for a consideration for the issue in the lis, are as follows:
The petitioner was a tenant in a residential property owned by one J.Anthonyswamy. The petitioner comes in possession of the property pursuant to an agreement of sale -3- CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021 entered into between J.Anthonyswamy and the petitioner on 11.06.1997 and an amount of Rs.75,000/- was paid as consideration in terms of the agreement of sale which puts the petitioner in possession of the property. It transpires that J.Anthonyswamy died out of the health issues on 01.10.1997.
During the life time, J.Anthonyswamy had initiated certain HRC proceedings against the petitioner and it was a specific clause in the sale agreement that HRC petition would be withdrawn after the sale deed would be executed in favour of the petitioner. Pending execution of the sale deed, J.Anthonyswamy dies.
4. The complainant claims to be in possession of a sale deed i.e., allegedly executed by J.Anthonyswamy on 25.09.1997 five days prior to his death which comes about on 01.10.1997. Since there were two documents, one an agreement of sale dated 11.06.1997 executed by the J.Anthonyswamy for a consideration which puts the petitioner in possession of the property and the sale deed dated 25.09.1997, on which the complainant claims right over the property, Civil Suit is generated. A suit in O.S.No.2089/1999 was instituted by the petitioner seeking specific performance of -4- CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021 the agreement against one Smt.Joseph Sunder Augustine, the complainant and her sister making them as defendant Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner loses the suit. The dismissal of the suit leads the petitioner to this Court in RFA No.1211/2011.
5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 20.05.2021 after analyzing all the documents that were placed before the trial Court holds that the trial Court misdirected itself in dismissing the suit and allows the RFA. The complainant herein prefer a Review Petition on the said order passed on 20.05.2021 in RFA No.1211/2011. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismisses the Review Petition on 12.11.2021. It is the afore quoted dates that are the link in the chain of events that have happened between the parties to the lis.
6. The Review Petition was dismissed on 12.11.2021. Immediately after the dismissal of the Review Petition, the impugned private complaint in PCR No.55268/2021 comes to be registered by the complainant on 29.11.2021 seeking investigation at the hands of the jurisdictional police. The learned Magistrate by its order dated 04.12.2021 directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. which leads to -5- CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021 registration of the impugned crime against the petitioner in Crime No.574/2021. It is registration of the crime that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
7. The learned counsel Sri.Amar Correa appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Court hearing the RFA (supra) has considered in elaboration the entire spectrum of the allegations that now forms a part of the private complaint and therefore, would contend that the present private complaint, is a counter blast after he loses the aforesaid case. He would contend that the document of 11.06.1997 is now sought to be made a subject matter of complaint in 2021, contending that it is a document that is forged and the complainant has been cheated. Therefore, he would submit that such proceedings, if permitted to continue, would become an abuse of the process of law.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri.G.S.Rajesh representing respondent No.2 would refute the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and contends that it is only when the order was passed in RFA, they came to know about the forgery done by the petitioner and would submit that the knowledge of crime is -6- CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021 important and delay should not permit the petitioner to seek quashment of the proceedings as there is no delay in the matter and would submit that the allegations clear make out an offence and it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 would toe the lines of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and contend that it only at this stage of crime, the investigation is to be permitted to continue, for the truth to come out and the petitioner to come out clean in the proceedings.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
11. The afore-quoted facts, link in the chain of events are not in dispute. Two documents form the crux of the allegations. One is a document i.e, executed on 11.06.1997 by one J.Anthonyswamy, who was the owner of the subject property. The agreement of sale results in the petitioner being put in possession of the property as he was already a tenant -7- CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021 under J.Anthonyswamy. It is not in dispute that the same petitioner who was a tenant, who later comes in possession of the property in terms of the agreement of sale, is in possession of the property even as on that date.
12. The other document i.e., sale deed executed by J.Anthonyswamy in favour of the complainant is dated 25.09.1997. J.Anthonyswamy dies on 01.10.1997. It is because of the existence of these documents, the petitioner knocks the door of the Civil Court in O.S.No.2089/1999. The trial Court declines to accept the contention of the petitioner that he was an agreement holder and he is in possession of the property and he had a right over the property. The suit is dismissed holding that the petitioner had no right over the property and specific performance of the agreement was declined.
13. This was challenged before this Court, in the aforesaid RFA. The issues that are framed by the Co-ordinate of this Court in the RFA (supra) assumes significance and is quoted for the purpose of quick reference.
"1) Whether the agreement of sale - Ex.P.1 dated 11.06.1997 set up by the plaintiff is proved in accordance with law ?-8- CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021
2) Whether the sale deed dated 25.09.1997 (Ex. D.4) set up by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is proved in accordance with law ?
3) Whether the plaintiff has proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under Ex.P.1 ?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance prayed for by him?"
(Emphasis supplied)
14. The issue No.1 formulated by this Court was whether the agreement of sale dated 11.06.1997 set up by the petitioner is proved in accordance with law. This question is answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by observing as follows:
"'22. Taking into consideration the above, I am of the view that learned trial Judge has entirely gone against the weight of evidence in holding that Ex.P.1 is a concocted document and on the other hand the evidence clearly shows that plaintiff has successfully established that deceased - J.Anthonyswamy had executed the agreement of sale dated 11.06.1997 under Ex.P.1; he had paid Rs.75,000/- towards part sale consideration; and that he was put in possession of the suit schedule properties in part performance of the agreement of sale Ex.P1."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Issue No.2 was whether the sale deed set up by defendant No.2 and defendant No.3-complainant herein is -9- CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021 proved in accordance with law. The answer to the said issue is as follows:
"33. It has to be noticed that it was only later during the arguments that a case was sought to be built regarding the non- genuineness of Ex.P.2 by suggesting that time of the admission appearing on the face of Ex.P.2 was an interpolation and, therefore, the whole of the contents of Ex.P.2 is a product of fabrication which was too readily accepted by the learned Court below without so much as scrutinizing the evidence as to whether, during the trial, there was any doubt raised so as to enable the plaintiff to offer further and more evidence on the said aspect. This is required to be appreciated further from the fact that defendant No.2 when examined as D.W.1 has clearly admitted that J.Anthonyswamy had undergone major operation and only after that he died and she has also stated that the surgery was performed on 26.09.1997 and he died on 01.10.1997. That, she had no qualms in tweaking the date of admission of J.Anthonyswamy to the Hospital, is apparent from what she had to say further during her cross examination which reads as follows :
"...... I do not remember that in Ex.P.10 on 12.02.2004 at page 14 "It is true to say that I have also given the deposition to the effect that on 25th morning of September, 1997, Antonyswamy was admitted into the hospital". I do not remember that I have also deposed therein that said Antonyswamy have admitted at Lakeside Hospital and he had undergone treatment and had consequently breathed his last breath. ........"
[Emphasis supplied] Ex.P10 referred to above is the deposition of this defendant No.2 (DW.1) in HRC No.157/2002. As could be seen there from, this witness has categorically admitted in the earlier proceedings that
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021 J.Anthonyswamy was admitted to Hospital on the morning of 25.09.1997. Besides, Ex.P.2 was earlier produced in HRC No.157/2002 instituted by these defendants against the plaintiff and it was marked as Ex.R.3. D.W.2 (who is defendant No.3) has categorically admitted during cross examination that she had admitted the correctness of Ex.P.2 in the said proceedings.
34. It is the definite case of the defendants as could be seen from the endorsement on Ex.D.4 that it was presented for registration before the Sub- Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. on 25.09.1997 by the vendor J.Anthonyswamy himself. The admission of DW.1 as extracted above and that of D.W.2 in HRC No.157/2002 clearly gives a lie to the assertion of the defendants that J.Anthonyswamy had appeared before the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of execution of Ex.D.4 and presentation of the document for registration on 25.09.1997. If he was admitted to the Hospital on 25.09.1997 in the morning, as could be seen from the deposition of D.W.1 which is marked as Ex.P.10 and was also confronted to her, it was impossible for J.Anthonyswamy, who was to die soon on account of serious and debilitating illness, to have gone to the office of Sub-Registrar for the purpose of execution of the sale deed and presentation of the document for the purpose of registration. At any rate, defendants have not placed any evidence of definitive nature to show that notwithstanding the fact that J.Anthonyswamy was admitted to hospital in the morning, he had bestirred himself to go to the Sub- Registrar's office to accomplish this one last mission of his life. Learned trial Court has failed to refer to this aspect of the evidence presented during the trial.
35. The further affirmation of the fact that in all human probability, J.Anthony Swamy could not have appeared before the Sub-Registrar and he would not have executed the sale deed and presented Ex.D.4 for registration is forthcoming from the evidence of D.W.3, the alleged attestor to Ex.D.4. In
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021 the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief, D.W.3 the attestor of Ex.D.4 has stated that :-
" .... I have signed the said sale deed as attesting witness and in my presence the said J.Anthony Swamy - the vendor of these defendants had executed the sale deed in favour of these defendants before the Sub-
Registrar and thereafter he died on 01.10.1997 and he is no more and at the time of registration of the sale deed, the said J.Anthony Swamy was in a sound and disposing state of mind."
[Emphasis supplied]
36. D.W.3 has admitted during his cross examination that he is a land developer and he is an agriculturist. He further admitted that he had given evidence in HRC No.1247/1998 instituted by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for eviction against the plaintiff. He has stated that he had been knowing J.Anthony Swamy since about 25 years. He has further deposed as follows :
"...... ºÉZï.Dgï.¹.£ÀA.1247:1998 PÉù£À £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è CAvÉÆÃt ¸Áé«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ¢£À ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÉÆÃrzÉÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. ¸ÀzÀj PÉù£À°è £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ¸ÁQë ºÉýPÉ ¤.¦.12gÀAvÉ EzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 26-9- 1997gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ Hj£À°è £À£Àß ¸ÉÊlÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀÄ ¤.¦. 12 gÀ°è ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. JAzÀgÉ ¤d. ¤.¦.12gÀ ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀtÂAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¤.¦- 12gÀ £À£Àß ¥Án ¸ÀªÁj£À°è 1 ®PÀë 90 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1 ®PÀë 90 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛ£É. £À£Àß ¥ÁnÖà ¸ÀªÁj£À°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 25-09-1997PÉÌ CªÀgÀÄ ºË¹Öl®£À°è Cräl DVÎzÀÝgÀÄ. jf¸ïÖµÀ£ÀUÉ §A¢gÀ°®è. CªÀjUÉ vÀÄA¨Á SÁ¬Ä¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºË¹Öl®£À°è Cräl DVÎzÀÝgÀÄ. ¤.¦.12 (J) £ÀAvÉ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. "
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021
37. It is necessary to make reference to the portion of the evidence of this D.W.3 who was examined as P.W.3 in HRC No.1247/1998. The portion marked as Ex.P.12(a) reads as follows :
"25-9-97 PÉÌ CªÀgÀÄ ºÁ¸Ààl®£À°è Cräl DVÎzÀÝgÀÄ. jf¸ïÖµÀ£ÀUÉ §A¢gÀ°®è. CªÀjUÉ vÀÄA¨Á SÁ¬Ä¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁ¸Ààl®£À°è Cräl DVÎzÀÝgÀÄ."
The above also casts serious doubt about J.Anthonyswamy executing the sale deed - Ex.D.4 on 25.09.1997 as claimed by the defendants."
16. The Court holds that the agreement of sale dated 11.06.1997 is proved and to the contrary, the document dated 25.09.1997 could not be proved to be a sale deed valid in the eye of law. The appeal is allowed by the learned Judge. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:
"80. Hence, the following:
The above appeal is allowed. The
judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.2089/1999 dated 23.04.2011 by the learned XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No.8), is set aside. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) are directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff - appellant, transferring and conveying the property described in the schedule to the plaint with a further direction that in the event of defendants - respondents failing to execute the sale deed, for execution of the sale deed by the learned trial Court on behalf of the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, through a Court Commissioner within three months from today. The plaintiff -
- 13 -CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021
appellant is directed to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.30,000/- before the learned trial Court within 60 days from today."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. On the aforesaid findings, the Court holds that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2089/1999 dated 23.04.2011 was erroneous and defendant Nos.1 to 3, one of whom is the complainant are directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein transferring and conveying the property described in the schedule within three months from the date of pronouncement of the judgment in the RFA which was dismissed on 20.05.2021.
18. A review is preferred by the complainant herein in Review Petition No.295/2021 which also gets dismissed on 12.11.2021. It is thereafter the impugned crime is registered by invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by filing a private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC i.e., cheating and forgery.
19. It is germane to notice the contents of the private complaint as the entire issue now springs from the said complaint. The complaint insofar as there are germane to the lis, which are as follows:
- 14 -CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021
"iii) Section 468 of IPC - The Accused has forged the sale agreement dated 11.06.1997, the signature of the previous owner, both the earlier owner "Late J.Antonyswamy" as well as the complainant had also initiated HCR Proceedings against the accused, the complainant had succeeded in obtaining eviction order in HRC No.157/2022 also HRRP No.463/2006, even then at the instance of the Forged Sale Agreement and the pendency of Specific Performance litigations based on the said Forged Sale Agreement has cheated the complainant all these 23 years consequently without payment of rent to a tune of Rs.22,00,400/- has attracted the above penal provision of forging for the purpose of cheating.
5. The Complainant had earlier filed an PCR No.54478/2021, before this Hon'ble Court and the same was disposed on dated 30.10.2021, for want of compliance under section 154 (1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. accordingly the complainant has made moved the above complainant after compliance of Section 154(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. and on due failure of the law enforcement agency in taking note and action fo the complaint made before them on dated 9.11.2021, which has gone beyond 24 hours."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The dates that are necessary to be noticed are as follows:
This Court allows the RFA on 20.05.2021 directing execution of a sale deed to the complainant herein along with others within three months from 20.05.2021. An attempt is made to file a review petition seeking review of the order. The
- 15 -CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021
said review petition comes to be rejected on 12.11.2021 and immediately thereafter to get over the rigor of the direction of execution of sale deed within three months from 20.05.2021, the impugned PCR is registered.
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.
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
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021 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
- 17 -CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021
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
- 18 -CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021
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 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
- 19 -
CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021 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 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
- 20 -CRL.P No. 9944 of 2021
considered in the case at hand, between the parties.
I.A.Nos.1/2022 is disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7