Karnataka High Court
Rajshekar And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 22 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200402/2022
Between:
1. Rajshekar
S/o Shivsharanappa Mangalgi,
Age: 44 Years, Occ: Nil,
R/o CIB Colony,
Behind Central Bus Stand,
Kalaburagi-585103.
2. Sanjay
S/o Mahadevappa Patil,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Chincholi Layout,
Aland Road,
Kalaburagi-585106.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka through
Station Bazar Police Station,
Now represented by the Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka,
2
Kalaburagi Bench-585103.
2. Smt. Sapna
W/o Rajshekar Mangalagi,
Age: 39 Years, Occ: Household,
R/o # 5-586/39,
Vijaynagar Colony,
Aland Road, Kalaburagi.
... Respondents
(By Sri Gururaj V.Hasilkar, HCGP for R1;
Smt. Sapna, Party-in-person-R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow this petition and quash the
order of taking cognizance dated 19.01.2022 passed in
C.C.No.131/2022 arising from Cr.No.133/2021 of
Station Bazar, by the Principal Civil Judge (J D) & JMFC
Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections
341, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court invoking inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order of taking cognizance dated 19.01.2022 passed in C.C.No.131/2022 3 (arising out of Crime No.133/2021 of Station Bazar Police Station, Kalaburagi) by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 as complainant filed the first information with Station Bazar Police Station, Kalaburagi, on 13.09.2021 against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged that accused No.1 is the husband of the informant and they married on 28.12.2013. There was an agreement for payment of dowry and after marriage, accused No.1 along with his family members started ill- treating the informant for not giving sufficient dowry. She was left alone in the house since April 2016. On 16.11.2016 at about 10.45 p.m. accused No.1 and his family members managed to brake open the door of the house where the informant was residing through some 4 unknown persons. A case was registered in that regard. Therefore, the informant installed C.C. camera in the said house.
3. It is stated that on 09.09.2021, the informant had attended the Court in C.C.No.1447/2018 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.1264/2017 which were posted for hearing. Accused No.1 being the husband and accused No.2 being his friend criminally intimidated the informant to withdraw the complaint. They came and stood near the motorcycle belonging to the informant to pressurize her to withdraw the complaint. Since the incident had taken place inside the Court complex, in front of the Bar Association, several Advocates have witnessed the incident. Accused No.1 abused the complainant in filthy language. Since both the accused were criminally intimidating her only to see that the complaint is withdrawn, she requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action and to give her proper protection. Accordingly, the police have registered the 5 case in Crime No.133/2021 of Station Bazar Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences stated above and took up investigation. It is stated that after investigation charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences against both the accused.
4. The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings which is now pending in C.C.No.131/2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, for the above said offences.
5. Heard Sri Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 is the husband of the informant and petitioner No.2 is a friend of petitioner No.1. Even though marriage of petitioner No.1 and the complainant was taken place on 28.12.2013, they lived together for a very sort 6 period. Thereafter, accused No.1 is residing separately with his family members. Since there was family dispute, the informant is in the habit of filing complaints repeatedly. Even private complaint in P.C.No.992/2018 was filed by the informant making false allegations. After investigation, 'B' report was filed before the police. However, the informant filed protest petition and the matter is set down for evidence before the Trial Court. Accused No.2 is in no way concerned to the informant. But, he is also implicated in the matter without any basis. Hence, filing of the complaint is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The learned counsel also submitted that even staff of Deputy Commissioner's office filed complaint against the informant for interfering with the discharge of their duties in the office of Deputy Commissioner where a proceeding under Senior Citizen Act is pending. This shows the conduct of the informant. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings, in the interest of justice. 7
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 who appeared before the Court in person opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Specific overt-act is alleged in the first information by the informant with reference to the date, time and also place where the incident had taken place. The accused are pressurizing the informant only to see that complaints are withdrawn. The informant-respondent No.2 being a helpless lady is approaching the Courts of law whenever the accused are threatening her or committing criminal offences. The same cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. Since the charge sheet is already filed and the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences, it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings and accordingly, they pray for dismissal of the petition. 8
8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned order of taking cognizance and criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed invoking inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
9. The first information lodged by the informant- respondent No.2 disclose that she is residing alone and there is matrimonial dispute between accused No.1 and the informant since long. That may be the reason for frequent pin pricks between them. In the first information there is specific reference to the incident that had occurred in the Court complex on 09.09.2021. It is stated that both the accused followed her, stood by the side of her bike and abused her in filthy language only to pressurize her to withdraw the complaint. After investigation, charge sheet 9 also came to be filed. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and the matter is registered in C.C.No.131/2022 for the above said offences.
10. On perusal of the materials on record, I am of the opinion that there are prima facie materials in support of the allegations made by the informant. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings.
11. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*