Smt M Nagaveni vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt M Nagaveni vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010

Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 24?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. EUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAIW'-«'..'_*V1---.I:__Vj: 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3952¢201i_3~----».--E:~..:"'O~:: 4.

BETWEEN:

1. Smt. M.§\iagaveni,
W/o K.Srinivasamurthy,
Aged about 53 years,
Occ: Housewife,

2. KS. Vivek, _I '  ;
S/o K.Srinivasamur'EhY:   '
Aged about 27 years,  j_' '

Occ: Student,   

Both are residen-ts of  _   ' -
No.3:/2, Vani'\/ilas Road,f~._   

Basavanagudi,  * V '  
BangaEore«-S60 004. V'     Petitioners

(I315/'Eri. sé.d'diI,_a:rat.:wn B. Mu'c'i'--ua'ndi & Sri. Chinnay 3. Mirji,
Advocates) 

 1. The State of Karnataka,
»  .B'y.,the Po'ii_c;eI of
 '- Basavanagudi Poiice Station,
' «..B'ang.aloije City.

E-

{X

 



2. Prabhakara (3.,
S/o late B.M. Govindaswamy,
Aged about 54 years,
No.14/1, I Fioor,
Ratnavilas Road,
Basavanagudi,

Bangaiore--560 004.  Resp?_:}"n'd'eVn'ts_f.  .

(By Sri. Satish R. Girji, High Court Government 'i->'i'eaijciver"~fTor-- _ it  

R1; Sri. K. Raghavendra, Advocate for R2)» ,_  .g _ «

This Criminal Petition is filed under :S'ectioAn«48.2;:_of=Code"of'V'

Criminal Procedure praying to quasii-._the% pr0.(teediin,gs,a'g,alii~st"jthe " C

petitioner in c.c. NO.18709/Z010 pend-:..ng--.,9n tl'ie--ﬁle of? the 4*"
Additionai Chief Metropolitan;:_,_iV3%agis.itratei, ii-3a_ngalore  for the
offences punishable under  415, 418,
420, 504 & 506 read.Vv»{i:th___34 ,o'fi'nd:ian: i>iein_ai'cna'e.

This Criminal   on for admission this day

_g  E R

the Court made"t!n_e"folllowliéiaggf C'

 .__"i'hiS:,_jéri{n:iiial Pe'tVi'tio-n----«i«s filed under Section--482 of Code of

Crirninaili>ro,ced_ure~praying to quash the proceedings against the

.5,'ii-..p.etitioner'"i'n c,'cg:i,'7it~io.:87os/2010 pending on the file of the 4"'

.,i'_l,Add'iti_?onai 'Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore city for the

iv



offences punishable under sections 403, 405, 406, 415, 418,

420, 504 8:. 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. _
2. I have heard the learned counsei for the petitionersas

well as the learned counsel for the respondents. _ _

3. The primary facts of the case are as under:

3.1 One (3. Prabhakara presented»~..a_ c<)'n'ipl'aiii.--nt_."un_d.er._ Section--200 of Code of Criminal Proceduretibefore.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Biangalore. said * if complaint Poiice Station for investigation h After investigation, the investlgating_Vagen'cyV_:'ia§,d,--. sheet against Accused No.1 ._ S:if'i'n'is'a$arn'iC1rtf-n/,«1§cciised""iiio.2 --- 'Smt. Nagaveni and Accused No.3 the offences punishable under sections 4o:~:,' gC4os%, .4V'i{5,i::418, 420, 504, 505 read with 34 of Indian

--.%_C.Cj--'enai..,Code. " _ if 3.2 It is alieged in the charge sheet that Accused No.1 and CW--1 Prabhakar were friends from the chiidhood. Accused No.1 promised CW-1 that he will seli his house to him. CW--1_4.wiith_:a_n intention to purchase the same, entered into an ag.r?eemVeVnt__jo-f_._'". saie with Accused No.1 on 25.3.2007. - 'ands "

CW-3 -- Shivashankar bin Linganna agreement for sale was executed. 5Sii_bseq'uentiy, Accigsed No.1 obtained cash in few installments. Ac:c'u.s:ed.V_vNo.'i"dVid:v':notVf:execute the registered saie deed arnount and cheated CW~1. In thisg.regard...C\iVf1Eii's_.wVi.fge"V"used to go to the house of the Accused Nos.1,2 and 3 cameﬁto and abused him in filthy language and Qthrreateinqed Even at paragraph--4 of theV.compi«3}.ih't,tr.it that on 17.11.2009 at 5.30 p.m. accusedn,persons.ﬂzoluntariiy came to the house of the compI'aina--nt him in filthy ianguage and threatened with dire vc:on's'équences. It is also stated in paragraph~4 oi' that the accused persons aiso threatened the "V7_'--.:comp|ain'ant that if he pursues against the accused in any forum, 6/ the accused would send the Rowdies to his residentiai premises and he knows how to finish the complainant. The complainant being a heart patient has lodged a complaint to the jurisdict-i.o'ria| Police Station i.e. Basavanagudi Police Station immedi_a:te|'y.'_';---.. _

4. Learned cousnel for the petitioners submits thatgthere is inconsistency in the case of the prosecution."Therefore:"iae seeks to quash the crime by exercising the powe'r__under Seeti'o'n4~48'?;'ot"' Code of Criminal Procedure. The Caste'-ipertaihslto. _"c_:ivili.:duiVsVpute. In support of his contention",W..he r.e'|'i'es:..on"t.he de'ci'sio'n of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in me" .c.¢'ase7o:i i3:..S~l.;_li2.E$H YADAV vs. SHARIFA BEE__& Am. "'i*e'ported"l»i:rT1'"AIR 52008 SC 210. S. Learned" *i--Ivigh _"Court;Government Pieader for the resppondentfv State hasiprodiuced the case diary, statements of .9»:'M.N._Vl:RAeddA:y~-.and CW--5 -- K. Suresh. Their statements '.ﬁ>disc|ose.NOs.1 to 3 went to the house of the Vycovmplaihant atmused him in a fiithy language and threatened 4_

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is inconsistency in the case of the complainant, but the averment made in the complaint indicates that'»._ith_e complainant has paid Rs.60.00 lakhs to the accused.__jfinrlspi--t.e_:cfj_ _ it, the accused has not executed the sale deed. _.~The::~co'rn:plaint"

averrnents also disclose that on 17.11.2909-.atiaubaou't.' petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3.'ca_me Vtoithe complainant and abused him in |_angu3-Que": El}/en the statements of CWs.4 and Sqcforroborat'es__'vyit.h_ the averments made in the complaint, The r'u'lin'g:'§relied on by the learned counsel for itne:gp.etiti:L:synérs;is.:_'novt"a'p-pl~i:cable to the facts and circumstances of"":.ire"'case._si'nce-there is a prima facie case against the accused' ar':d."'fur--th'"e;lr'this Court cannot venture or embark an enquiry: asyto the credibility, authenticity or trustmio'I*thH:irue_ssA..ofithe complaint at this stage. Filing of the charge~sheet"an'd.___alV~s0""averments made in the statement of the T;witnesses"con.firms that there is prima facie case against the is well settled law that inherent powers of this 'a.re'to be exercised with due care and caution and that too «L/' in rarest of rare Cases. This is not the rarest of rare case where this Court can exercise its inherent power to quash the crime. This Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and the same Es':!i_a'i)_ie to be dismissed.

7. In the result, I pass the following:

QRDER This Criminal Petition is dismis'sedV_A 635/ "

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court