Karnataka High Court
Mr Aniruddha Saundattikar vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 587
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3793 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Aniruddha Saundattikar,
S/o. Mr. Arun Saundattikar,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at No.10,
Gitanjali Pride - 2,
6th Cross, 5th Main,
Malleshpalya,
Bengaluru - 560 075.
2. Miss. Dhara Badani,
D/o. Mr. Late Piyush Badani,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at No.2A,
105, Shilpitha Splendor,
Chinnappa Layout, Mahadevapura,
Bengaluru - 560 048.
...Petitioners
(By Smt. Monica Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by HAL Police Station,
Old Airport Road,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
-2-
2. Smt. Kavitha S.E.,
W/o. Mr. Viresh Dhankai,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at No.802, E-17,
Sandeep Vihar,
Kannamangala,
Bengaluru - 560 007.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP for R1;
Sri. Amit Deshpande, Adv. for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.374/2016
pending on the file of 43rd Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru (Annexure - A) and consequently
quash the complaint in PCR No.52490/2016 dated
17.06.2016 (Annexure-B), FIR bearing Crime
No.374/2016 (Annexure - A) pending on the file of the
43rd ACMM, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for Final
Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have sought to quash the FIR in Cr.No.374/2016 pending on the file of the 43rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 324, 354 read with 34 of IPC. -3-
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners' and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts essential for the disposal of the petition are that petitioner No.1 herein filed a compliant in Cr.No.261/2016 against the husband of respondent No.2 and his father as well as two other accused persons alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 427, 341, 323, 354 read with 34 of IPC.
4. According to petitioner No.1 on 08.05.2016 at about 05.15 p.m when he along with petitioner No.2 was traveling in his car bearing registration No.KA-03 MS 3436 and took an 'U' turn, the car driven by the husband of respondent No.2 stopped in front of his car and the husband of respondent No.2 and his father as well as two other persons who came there on a motor cycle assaulted petitioners No.1 and 2 and also -4- damaged the windshield, wiper and side windows of the car. Investigation was taken up. The husband of respondent No.2 was arrested on 11.05.2016 and he was produced before the Magistrate on 12.05.2016. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be lodged against the husband of respondent No.2, his father and two other accused persons on 24.10.2016 for the above offences.
5. That being the case, the respondent No.2 herein presented a private complaint before the learned 10th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The said complaint does not indicate the date when it was presented before the Magistrate. It also does not bear the date when it was signed by the complainant. However, the endorsement of the Magistrate reveals that the learned 43rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, had seen the said complaint on 18.06.2016. The endorsement made by the police -5- thereon indicates that based on the reference of the said complaint, jurisdictional police registered Cr.No.374/2016 on 17.06.2016 against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 324, 354 read with 34 of IPC.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners' submit that the complaint initiated against the petitioners is an afterthought and a counter blast to the complaint filed by petitioner No.1 against the husband of respondent No.2. It is a retaliatory complaint. The allegations made therein do not indicate that the petitioners herein have committed any offences as alleged in the private complaint. On the other hand, the petitioners were mere victims at the hands of the husband of respondent No.2. The delay in lodging the said complaint is not properly explained. Even though it is stated that an attempt was made to lodge the complaint before the jurisdictional police, the -6- circumstances averred therein prove it otherwise. Thus, it is contended that respondent No.2 has misused the process of the Court and hence the petitioners have sought to quash the above proceedings.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners' has placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Crl.M.C.No.3951/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.14129/2013 dated 20.03.2014 between R.K.Kwatra & Ors Vs. State & Anr.
8. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 places reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.3517/2012 dated 31.01.2017 between Deepak and 04 others Vs. State and another and also on the ruling of the Division Bench in Crl.A.Nos.281-282/1982 dated 02.03.1984 between The State of Karnataka Vs. Balappa Bhau Vadagave and others and has produced a positive printout of the photo of the father of -7- respondent No.2 to show that he has sustained injury during the incident. The learned counsel submits that in the very same incident, the husband of respondent No.2 and her father were attacked by the petitioners herein. Respondent No.2 was an inmate of the said car and the petitioners misbehaved with her causing grievous injuries. Both the incidents having taken place in a single occurrence, a case and counter case have been filed in respect of the same offence and therefore there is no reason to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
9. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced a Xerox copy of the Certificate dated 09.05.2016 issued by Dr.Krishna Simha of Sri Raghavendra Clinic and a copy of the complaint dated 12.05.2016 made to the SHO, HAL police station.
10. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and carefully perused the records. It is -8- not in dispute that an incident had taken place at Old Airport Road near HAL Cargo Complex on 08.05.2016 at 05.15 P.M. and in respect of the said incident, petitioner No.1 had lodged a complaint against the husband of respondent No.2 and her father as well as two other assailants. Based on the said complaint Cr.No.261/2016 was registered and the same has culminated in a chargesheet against them. The sole issue for consideration before this Court is whether the subsequent private complaint lodged by respondent No.2 relates to the same incident or whether it is a wrongful action and a counterblast to the earlier complaint made against her husband and her father-in- law ?
11. After hearing the parties and going through the records produced before the Court, I find that the FIR registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.374/2016 is nothing but a counter-offensive -9- action and an abuse of the process of Court.
Undisputedly, the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 was accused No.1 in Cr.No.261/2016 and was arrested on 11.05.2016. There is nothing on record to indicate that he complained of any assault on him when he was produced before the Magistrate. According to the complainant namely respondent No.2, she was on the way to the hospital and at the relevant time she was in her advanced stage of pregnancy. If in fact she had gone to the hospital and was treated in the hospital in all probability medico legal case ought to have been registered based on the information given by her and there would have been medical records in that regard. But, no such documents are produced before the Court. Instead the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced a medical certificate said to have been issued by Dr. Krishna Simha on 09.05.2016. Even in the said document, there is no reference to the injury said to
- 10 -
have been suffered by respondent No.2 in the alleged incident. On the other hand, in the private complaint at para-9, the respondent has stated:
"That after looking into the health condition of complainant old aged parents, the complainant lodged a complaint on 11.05.2016 before HAL police station. But the concerned officer refused to receive and entertain the complaint filed".
This statement completely falsifies the claim of respondent no.2 that she was manhandled and injured during the incident. It is evident from the very document produced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that initially the complaint was consigned to NCR. Even in this complaint there are no averments that respondent No.2 or her husband and her father-in-law had sustained injuries during the incident at the hands of the petitioners making it evident that the endorsement is got up only to create an evidence to support the private complaint lodged by respondent No.2.
- 11 -
12. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced a positive print of the photograph of the father-in-law of respondent No.2 to show that he has sustained injuries in the said incident. But the other circumstances discussed above do not lend any credence to this story. The material produced before the Court does not prima-facie inspire confidence to hold that the father-in-law of the complainant had sustained any injuries in the said incident. In this regard it is also important to note that neither the husband of the respondent No.2 nor her father-in-law have come forward with any allegation of assault on them. All these circumstances prima-facie lead to the conclusion that taking advantage of the fact that the respondent No.2 is a woman who was in the advanced stage of pregnancy, the complaint has been engineered through her solely with a view to foist a counter case against the petitioners.
- 12 -
13. In this context, it may be proper to refer to the observations made in the decisions of the Apex Court in Crl.M.C.No.3951/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.14129/2013 dated 20.03.2014 between R.K.Kwatra & Others Vs. State & Another, wherein it is held that even though the inherent powers of the Court cannot be liberally used to quash the crime proceedings at the stage of FIR, but has delineated in the said decision that where it appears to the Court, on the facts of a given case, that the prosecution of the complaint is manifestly malafide and evidently capricious and attached with ulterior motives, in order to secure the ends of justice, the Court is required to quash the FIR.
14. Having considered all the above materials on record, I am of the firm view that the incident alleged in Cr.No.374/2016 is not a reason on account of the same incident. Under the said circumstances, the
- 13 -
Investigating Officer is compelled to investigate into both the offences. Having regard to allegations made in the complaint and materials relied on by respondent No.2, I am of the view that the respondent No.2 has clearly misused the process of law and therefore is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated in Cr.No.374/2016 and all consequences arising there from are quashed.
The trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order during the course of trial arising from Cr.No.374/2016.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV/LL