Karnataka High Court
Varun H.S vs State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3761
CRL.P No. 7526 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7526 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. VARUN H.S.
S/O LATE H.L. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO 335, HORAVU
GRAMA POST, KRS ROAD,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT -571 427.
2. SANJEEV RATHOD
S/O DHARMU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO.93, N M ROAD,
BERA SHETTYHALLI PANDAVAPURA TOWN,
PANDAVAPURA,
MANDYA 571 234.
3. VASUDEVA K N
S/O KITTURU NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
Digitally R/AT,
signed by
REKHA R BEERA SHETTYHALLI PANDVAPURA TOWN,
PANDVAPURA,
Location: MANDYA -571234.
High Court
of
Karnataka 4. BHASKARA T R
S/O RAMALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT THONNUR VILLAGE,
MANDYA -571 234.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3761
CRL.P No. 7526 of 2023
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. NAVEEN V
S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA S C,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.26,
6TH CROSS, NR GARDEN,
CHOLORAPALYA ,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE CITY- 560 023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.THEJESH P.,HCGP FOR R1,
R2 - SRI.NAVEEN V-SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT
IN CR.NO.21/2022 PENDING BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND
J.M.F.C COURT PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 143,323,327,448,504,506,149 OF IPC (FOUND AT
ANNEXURE-A AND B).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioners seek the following relief:
"To quash the FIR and Complaint in Crime No.21/2022 pending before Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Pandavapura, Mandya District for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 323, 327, 448, 504, 506, 149 of IPC (Annexure-A & B) in the interest of justice."-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3761 CRL.P No. 7526 of 2023
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioners are public servants working in the office of Tahsildar, Pandavapura Taluk. On 11.01.2022, the Tahsildar, under whom the petitioners are working had lodged a complaint which is registered in Crime No.13/2022 against 10 accused persons who are members of the KRS party alleging various offences as against them. Subsequently, on 18.01.2022, the said Tahsildar filed one more complaint which was registered as FIR in Cr.No.20/2022 alleging various offence against other party members of the said KRS party.
4. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that as a counter blast and in order to wreak vengeance as against the petitioners as well as the Tahsildar, respondent No.2 who is also a member of the aforesaid KRS party filed the instant complaint which is registered in FIR in Crime No.21/2022 making false and vexatious allegations against the petitioners, without any basis and consequently the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3761 CRL.P No. 7526 of 2023
5. It is also pointed out that subsequently other KRS party members had filed complaints registered in FIR in Crime No.27/2022 dated 24.01.2022 and FIR in Crime No.101/2022 dated 03.04.2022, making identical allegations, all of which have ended in "B" report. It is therefore contended that continuation of the proceedings qua against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law, warranting interference by this Court.
6. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is no merit in this case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Respondent No.2 having been served with notice of this petition has not chosen to appear before this Court, remained unrepresented and has not contested the petition.
8. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Joseph Kanthraj Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. in Crl.P.No.9944/2021.
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even before the 2nd respondent filed the instant complaint against petitioners on 19.01.2022, the Tahsildar under -5- NC: 2025:KHC:3761 CRL.P No. 7526 of 2023 whom the petitioners worked as public servants had already filed police complaints registered in FIR in Crime No.13/2022 dated 11.01.2022 and Crime No.20/2022 dated 18.01.2022 against members of KRS party. It is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that 2nd respondent/complainant is also a member of the aforesaid KRS party. Under identical circumstances in relation to quashing of a complaint, which is filed by way of counter blast to the complaints already given by a party, this Court has held as under:
"xxxx
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.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:3761 CRL.P No. 7526 of 2023
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 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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:3761 CRL.P No. 7526 of 2023 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 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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:3761 CRL.P No. 7526 of 2023 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 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 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:3761 CRL.P No. 7526 of 2023 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 considered in the case at hand, between the parties.
I.A.Nos.1/2022 is disposed, as a consequence."
8. As stated supra, apart from the fact that the Tahsildar under whom the petitioners worked had already filed two complaints prior to the instant complaint dated 19.01.2022, the subsequent complaints given by other KRS party members have culminated in 'B' report. Under these circumstances, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3761 CRL.P No. 7526 of 2023 opinion that continuation of the instant proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.21/2022 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Pandavapura, Mandya District, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 323, 327, 448, 504, 506, 149 of IPC stand quashed qua insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15