Karnataka High Court
Sri P M Ashwin Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4377 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI P.M.ASHWIN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SRI P.M.JAGAN MOHAN
R/AT 26-104/23, B.N.356, ROAD NO.4
BALRAM NAGAR, SAFILGUDA, MALKAJGIRI
MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI DIST.
HYDERABAD - 500 056.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHU N.RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
HULIMAVU POLICE
BENGALURU.
2. SRI PRAKASH B.V.,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O SRI K.VENKATESH
RESIDING AT B-1201
AMODA VALMARK APARTMENT
DODDAKAMMANAHALLI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 083.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI PRAKASH B.V., RESPONDENT No.2 - PARTY-IN-PERSON)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR IN
CR.NO.31/2022 DATED 28.01.2022 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 / HULIMAVU POLICE (ANNEXURE-A) AS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S
120B, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF V
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Crime No.31 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC pending before the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Madhu N.Rao appearing for the petitioner, Smt. K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 in person.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- 3
The complainant in the case at hand is the husband of one Mrs. Shashikala who is accused No.1. The complainant and Mrs. Shashikala are married and have two children aged 19 years and 14 years. Accused No.3 one S.M.Savikiran is alleged to have an illicit relationship with the wife of the complainant which, according to the complainant, was discovered in May 2017. In May 2017 it transpires that Mrs. Shashikala abandoned matrimonial home and children and travels to Hyderabad and stays in a house on rent. It is here the petitioner comes into picture. Accused No.1 wife of the complainant after travelling to Hyderabad rents house No.7527 in Janapriya Metropolis apartment owned by the petitioner. Rental agreement is entered into between the petitioner and Mrs. Shashikala in respect of the apartment for a period of 11 months. The 1st respondent/Police on registration of the crime by the husband in Crime No.223 of 2017 for the aforesaid offences which was initially a missing complaint, questioned Mrs. Shashikala, takes her statement and photographs of the apartment. Soon 4 thereafter, in the month of June 2019, it appears that Mrs. Shashikala vacates the apartment.
4. On 28-07-2021 the 2nd respondent-complainant registers a private complaint against the petitioner and two others invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and seeks investigation at the hands of the Police. The learned Magistrate having directed conduct of investigation, FIR is registered in Crime No.31 of 2022 arraigning the petitioner as accused No.2. It is registration of the crime that is called in question by the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the petitioner is nowhere in the picture with regard to the dispute or squabble between the husband, wife and her alleged paramour. The petitioner's role is only when she approached him for taking the house on rent, the house is given for rent and offence under Section 120B, 419 and 420 of the IPC are all alleged against the petitioner only to 5 harass him for nothing and would seek quashment of proceedings insofar as he is concerned.
6. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent who appears in person would seek to refute the submission that his wife has never been to Hyderabad, she has straight away gets into Hyderabad and rents the apartment owned by the petitioner. Therefore, he is a part of the conspiracy in illicit relationship with his wife and the alleged paramour and as such, it is a matter of trial in which he has to come out clean.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent appearing in person.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The objections filed by the respondent No.2 in person also narrate the very circumstances that his wife is having alleged relationship with accused No.3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has helped accused No.3 and accused No.1 6 to come together by giving his apartment on rent and, therefore, he is a part of the conspiracy. These arguments are unacceptable, as without there being any further circumstance narrated in the complaint or narrated in the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.2 in person, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of law, as even according to the complaint, the only allegation against accused No.2 the petitioner is as found at paragraph 8(f) of the complaint which reads as follows:
"(f) Accused-2 has provided financial, legal & logistical support to file counter claim in Bengaluru and 6 false cases in Hyderabad, while accused-3 has provided a false address proof document in the form of rental agreement."
Except the aforesaid averment that the petitioner has provided legal and logistical support by giving the address proof of his house and executing a rental agreement, there is nothing to involve the petitioner. If this were to be accepted to be a crime, without any further circumstance, no person can be safe. If it is 7 a quarrel between the respondent No.2/husband, accused No.1/wife and accused No.3/paramour, it is for them to resolve the issue among themselves. Dragging the petitioner who is the owner of the flat and has given the flat on rent to the lady who seeks it for a period of 11 months cannot be hauled into these proceedings and allege offences under Sections 120B, 419 and 420 of the IPC inter alia.
9. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJANLAL reported in 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335 at clause (1) of paragraph 102 has clearly held that even if the allegation is taken to be true, it would not amount to an offence as alleged. The Apex Court holds as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases 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 8 and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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.
(3) 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.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) 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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is 9 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.
(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."
(Emphasis supplied) Therefore, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner would degenerate into harassment.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.31 of 2022 pending before the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore are quashed qua the petitioner.
Consequently, I.A.No.3/2022 stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ