Karnataka High Court
Pankaj Srivastava vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321
CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103666 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA,
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL
GLOBAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,
#29, 1ST FLOOR, SN COMPLEX,
14TH MAIN ROAD, #-BLOCK,
EXTENSION SAHAKARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. KIRAN &
SRI. ROHIT L. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION,
BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT KARNATAKA,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
KANKUPPI
2. RAKESH KUMAR RANA S/O JAGANATH,
Date: 2023.10.13
16:25:36 +0530
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. SECURITY OFFICER,
R/O. BELGAUNDI VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. BELAGAVI-590028.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. NITIN R. BOLABANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN BELAGAVI
RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.175/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
JMFC II COURT, BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 447,
323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC, IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED IS
CONCERN.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321
CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.175/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.R.Kiran and appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.Nitin R. Bolabandi for the respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner is the accused. One value lapse LLP sought to file a corporate insolvency resolution process against Global Energy Private Limited on the score of the Global Energy Private Limited committing default to the extent of Rs.3,92,29,844/- and sought to describe as a corporate debtor before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Branch (NCLT for short) on 02.12.2019.
The NCLT passed orders prohibiting the institution of suits or continuation of pending pendency of suits or -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment. The owner of one Sy. No.301 appears to have filed a suit for permanent injunction against Belgundi Cements Private Limited which has no relation to the property owned by Global Energy Private Limited which was the subject matter before the NCLT.
The properties of Global Energy Private Limited were situated at Sy. Nos.280 and 281. The petitioner was appointed as a Resolution Professional. The NCLT in terms of its order dated 06.05.2022 appointed one Dilip Kumar Jagad as Resolution Professional of the corporate debtor.
Subsequently, the petitioner comes to be appointed as Resolution Professional. Being the Resolution Professional, the petitioner wanted to inspect the property in Sy.
Nos.280 and 280/1 belonging to the corporate debtor. It is at that point in time, the narration is that he passes through the property belonging to the owner of the 2nd respondent situated in Sy. No.301. While the petitioner wanted to enter the property, it transpires that there was a squabble between the 2nd respondent - complainant and -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 the petitioner. This leads to a complaint being registered by the 2nd respondent - a Security Officer of Sy. No.301 alleging offences punishable under Section 447, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The complaint is registered on 28.08.2022. The registration of the crime against the petitioner is what has driven him to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only discharging his official duty being appointed as a resolution professional to take over the property in Sy. Nos.280 and 281. The complainant is the security officer in Sy. No.301.
Therefore, he has nothing to do with the said survey number. The only circumstance is that to take over Sy.
Nos.280 and 281 had just opened the gate and passed through to take over the property. It is nothing of the kind that the complaint alleges as happened in the case at hand is his submission.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - complainant Sri.Nitin R. -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 Bolbandi would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner, who is a resolution professional ought to have behaved in a manner of being one. He has assaulted or manhandled the security officer, the complainant and in the light of the said circumstance, the matter requires investigation, in the least, the matter is still at the stage of investigation. Therefore, the petition should not be entertained at this juncture, is his submission. It is his case that there is a clear case of trespass and assault on the security officer. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates, link in the chain of events are not in dispute. The issue is whether the petitioner could be hauled for the offences punishable as afore-quoted. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint registered by the 2nd respondent, I -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 deem it appropriate to notice the complaint which reads as follows:
"To CPI Dated-28.08.2022 Sub Rural Police Station Vadagaon Belagavi Subject- Complaint against Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava from Bangalore from Security Officer Rakesh Kumar, Jaganata Rana Age-44 Residing At Village Belgundi, Belgavi.
Dear Sir, This is to inform you about the incident happened at our premises today morning around 10.30am. I am Rakesh kumar Mob No-7022994728 (Security Incharge) of Indian Eye Security Pvt Ltd.
The person named Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava from Bangalore Mob No-9845002523 came in the property RS No.... and tried forcefully to enter the property. I told him that my owner is not in town and I have to take His permission to let him inside the property. Even after telling him he was using abusive language Manhandled me & again forcefully tried to enter the property. He did not disclose his identity and he still tried to enter the premises I have informed him that there is an Injunction order Case No.OS/0000354/2022 from the JMFC court Despite the same he forcefully tried to enter the property and threatened me with dire consequences if I did not allow him to enter the property.
I request a strict action to be taken against Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava from Bangalore & other officials in accordance with the law.
We also have taken the required videos of the incident which can be shown any time for your reference."-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022
8. The complaint is by Security Officer one Rakesh Kumar. The complaint is that the petitioner had forcefully entered into the premises i.e., at Sy. No.301 despite an injunction order in O.S. No.354/2022 and had also threatened the Security Officer with dire consequences.
This becomes a crime in Crime No.175/2022.
9. What the petitioner sought to execute is the official duties as was required for him to be performed as a Resolution Professional to inspect the properties of the corporate debtor which was at Sy. No.280 and 281. Sy.
No.301 may have been adjacent to Sy. Nos.280 and 281.
The plea in the complaint is that despite an order of injunction, the petitioner has barged into Sy. No.301. It is an admitted fact that the order of injunction was not against the petitioner. Order of injunction was against some other private entity to which the petitioner was not concerned. Therefore, the plea that it was in violation of the order of injunction is deliberate falsehood on the part of the complainant. Based upon the aforesaid plea, offence -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 punishable under Section 447 of the IPC is laid against the petitioner. Section 447 of the IPC reads as follows:
"Section 447- Punishment for criminal trespass- 'Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
10. Offence under Section 447 of the IPC mandates ingredients of it to be present as obtaining under Section 441 of the IPC. Section 441 of IPC reads as follows:
"441.Criminal trespass.-Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, remains there with the intention of taking unauthorized possession or making -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 unauthorized use of such property and fails to withdraw from such property or its possession or use, when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, duly served on him, is said to commit criminal trespass."
11. Section 441 of the IPC mandates that whoever enters into or upon a property in possession of another with an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate insult or annoy any person, is said to have committed trespass which becomes punishable under Section 447 of the IPC.
As observed hereinabove, the petitioner was only discharging his official duty of being a Resolution Professional as directed by NCLT. He was not concerned with Sy. No.301, he was concerned with Sy. Nos.280 and
281. Therefore, Section 447 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner.
12. The other offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.
Section 323 of the IPC mandates that an incident narrated for offence to become punishable under Section 323 of the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 IPC there should be hurt. The complaint does not narrate any such hurt being caused by the alleged act of the petitioner. Therefore, Section 323 of the IPC is imaginary laid against the petitioner.
13. What remains are Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC have its ingredients in Section 503 of the IPC. Section 503 of the IPC mandates that the intimidation should be with a criminal intent. Again reiterating, the petitioner was only performing his official duties. How a criminal intent can be lugged in to the performance of official duty is ununderstandable. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and Another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 951 in the circumstances becomes apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows:
24. Chapter XXII of the IPC relates to Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance.
Section 503 reads thus:--
"Section 503. Criminal intimidation. -- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation."
25. Section 504 reads thus:--
"Section 504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.-- Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
26. Section 506 reads thus:--
"Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. --Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
27. An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:--
1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised self control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant.
29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:--
"To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022
30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present.
32. However, as observed earlier, the entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The parameters are:--
"(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.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 (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 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.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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 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."
33. In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply referred to above.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022
34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.
35. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:--
"5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death....."
(Emphasis supplied in original)"
(Emphasis supplied)
14. The Apex Court considers the entire spectrum of the law and holds that judicial process should not become an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 noticed on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court supra, what would unmistakably emerge is that the petitioner is sought to be hauled into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason.
15. In view of the preceding analysis, permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of the law and run foul of the postulates laid down by State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 345, the Apex Court has held 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 and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 (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 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.
(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 instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 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."
The aforesaid clauses would become applicable to the facts of the case at hand, as the offences are closely laid and such offences cannot be permitted to be investigated into. Insofar the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd., vs. State of Maharashtra and others by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant does not in anyway indicate that there should no interference at all at the hands of the Court hearing of petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
16. For all the aforesaid reasons, if investigation is permitted to continue against the petitioner, it would
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11321 CRL.P No. 103666 of 2022 result in patent injustice, degenerate into harassment and become an abuse of the process of the law.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.175/2022 of Belagavi Rural Police Station qua the petitioner stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh / ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13