Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mylarappa vs Sri. Raghavendra K N on 21 June, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018
:BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2089/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MYLARAPPA
S/O CHIKKAYAPPA, AGED 68 YEARS
2. SMT NAGAVENI
W/O SRI MYLARAPPA, AGED 58 YEARS
3. SMT UMA M
D/O SRI MYLARAPPA, AGED 35 YEARS
4. SMT MYNA M
D/O SRI MYLARAPPA, AGED 31 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.1533/1
5TH A MAIN, 3RD CROSS
B BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 092 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. M. ASHOKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K N
S/O SRI K C NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
LAW STUDENT, R/AT NO.19
FLAT NO.16, DEEPA FLOOR MILL
ROAD, SANJAYNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 094.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
2
KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560 092
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDARA K. N., R-1 AS PARTY-IN-
PERSON; SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 15.04.2017 IN ISSUING PROCESS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.15069/2017 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BANGALORE FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506 R/W 34
OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.06.2018 COMING
ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER', THIS DAY
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC No.15069/2017 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru City, have sought for quashing of the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process against the accused and also for quashing of the entire proceedings thereon.
2. The respondent No.1 - party-in-person is present before the court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for 3 respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 - party-in- person. Perused the records.
4. The brief factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The respondent No.1 party-in-person lodged a private complaint in PCR No.16502/2014 against the petitioners herein u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru City, for the alleged offence punishable u/ss.502, 504, 506, 509, 427 and 193 of IPC.
5. The said complaint initially referred to the jurisdictional Police for investigation and report u/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C. On 4.10.2016, the Police have submitted B-summary report before the court. Thereafter, notice was issued to the complainant/respondent herein and the respondent has contested the said 'B'-report submitted by the Police and he has sought for taking cognizance of his complaint and also on the basis of the protest petition. 4
6. The complainant examined himself and provided the sworn statement on 24.11.2016 and got marked 65 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-65. He has also examined one more witness on his side as CW-2 Sri Rangachari.
7. The learned Magistrate, after going through the sworn statement, complaint averments as well as the documents produced before the court was of the opinion that the respondent/complainant has made out a case for issuance of process against the accused. Hence, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has passed a detailed order and issued process against the accused vide order dated 15.4.2017, which is sought to be quashed.
8. Well recognized guidelines have been issued as to under what circumstances a complaint or an FIR can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 SCC (CRI.) 426. Though, they are not exhaustive in nature, but the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically made certain guidelines as to 5 under what circumstances, the proceedings can be quashed which are necessarily to be extracted and the same is extracted hereunder:
"8.1. In the exercise of the extra- ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if 6 any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the 7 Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) 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.
Therefore, as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if the complaint averments or the FIR averments even they are broadly understood, if it does not give any semblance of material or allegations which are sufficient to constitute any of the offences alleged, then the court can quash such proceedings or if the allegations are so vague, no ordinary person can come to the conclusion that the offences are constituted, then also the court can quash the proceedings. Last, but not least, if on the basis of the materials on record, where 8 the court can draw an inference conclusively that the complaint or the FIR or the criminal prosecution has been launched only with an intention to wreck vengeance against the accused persons, then also, the court can quash such proceedings. Though, other guidelines are also given by the court so far as this case is concerned, in my opinion, the above said guidelines have to be looked into. Further, added to the above, if the learned Magistrate had an opportunity to look into the factual matrix of the case, on the basis of the complaint averments, he has considered the sworn statement and the documents and then tentatively recorded his opinion that there is a prima facie material to proceed against the accused, in such an eventuality, normally, this court should not interfere with such an order passed by the Magistrate. In this particular case, the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is proper and it is in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has referred the complaint to the Police u/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C. which has not been challenged at any point of time by the 9 petitioners. After the Police submitted 'B'-report, the court has provided opportunity to the complaint and after hearing, rejected the 'B'-report and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses and marked the documents on the side of the complainant and after hearing, the learned Magistrate found that, it is not a case for dismissal u/s.203 of Cr.P.C.. Hence, by means of expressing his opinion, passing a detailed order, issued process against the accused. There is no legal lacuna in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
9. Now, coming to the factual matrix of this case, it is specifically alleged in the complaint at various places, that accused No.1 and others colluding with each other they have made allegations that, the respondent/complainant has gone mad and he has un- sound mind and that, he is mentally abnormal. Not only that the accused persons have spread that news even to the girl who was proposed to marry him. It is also specifically alleged that the accused persons have threatened the complainant with dire consequences of 10 killing him and also cut his legs etc., and therefore, he has received great threat for his life from the accused persons. Whether these allegations are true or false has to be tested after hearing the accused persons by the court at the time of hearing with regard to framing of charges. Whatever the materials that the accused persons have, if they are not conclusive in nature, those cannot be taken into consideration to exercise powers u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash such proceedings. Therefore, when the court cannot conclusively draw any inference with regard to the existence of any vengeance between the parties and only due to that vengeance, a false case has been foisted against the accused petitioner, if such inference cannot be drawn, the court shall not venture upon to quash such proceedings.
10. As the learned Magistrate has already found that the allegations in the complaint and the protest memo if they are considered meaningfully constitute the offences alleged against the accused persons. Such an opinion, should not be easily disturbed by this court, 11 unless there is a strong material running against the complainant.
11. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any strong reasons to quash the proceedings as prayed by the petitioners. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to move the trial Court for their discharge by filing necessary application before the trial Court. In that eventuality, the trial Court has to provide opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
In view of the dismissal of the petition on merits, I.A.No.2/2018 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*