Karnataka High Court
Ramana Reddy M.V. S/O. Late Ramana Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 13 August, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10059/2012
BETWEEN:
RAMANA REDDY M.V.
S/O. LATE RAMANA REDDY
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR,
M/S. M.V.R. ELETRICALS, NO. 20/E,
2ND FLOOR, NEHRU COLONY, BELLARY
DIST: BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.B B BAJENTRI, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTED. BY THE SHO,
RURAL POLICE STATION,
DIST: BELLARY
2. S.H.O. BRAHMAPURA POLICE STATION,
GULBARGA. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.10.2010
REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.291/2010 FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 468, 471, 420 R/W 34
IPC, AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.291/2010
ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JMFC), GULBARGA
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner had entered into contract "for construction of 110 KV SC Line for a distance of 14.4 Kms from Tegginabudihalu limits to110 KV sub-station, Bellary (South) for evacuation of power from independent power plant of M/s.RAACL".
2. The petitioner had submitted bank guarantee in terms of contract entered into between the parties. The petitioner did not execute the work. The parties were also before the Arbitrator. When the complainant approached the bank (Tungabhadra Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Sanganakal) the bank officials informed that Tungabhadra Agricultural Co-operative Bank had not issued bank guarantee and they had no authority to issue bank guarantee. Therefore, first information was lodged against the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has contended that dispute is of civil in nature and the first information has to be quashed. 3
4. In a decision reported in 2008 AIR SCW 11 (in the case of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & Another - vs- State of Andhra Pradhesh and Another) the Supreme Court has held:
"30. A careful reading of the above noted judgments makes it clear that the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the court. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing the FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint discloses commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations 4 simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of the FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C."
5. In the case on hand, the contents of first information report would reveal that bank guarantees offered by the petitioner are not genuine. The matter requires investigation. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE Np/-