Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjuna Channabasappa Haveri vs State Of Karnataka By on 28 June, 2022
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 101173 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101173 OF 2017 (482)
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUNA CHANNABASAPPA HAVERI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORKER
& APMC PRESIDENT, R/O: OLD LP.B. ROAD,
PARAMESHWAR COMPLEX, HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARAVIND D KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HAVERI TOWN POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
2. GUDDAPPA MALLAPPA SANGUR,
AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: CATTLE MARKET,
Digitally HAVERI.
signed by ...RESPONDENTS
ANNAPURNA (BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1)
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 : SERVED)
Location:
HIGH COURT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD IN CRIME NO. 78 OF 2017 BY HAVERI TOWN POLICE STATION,
HAVERI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506,
504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
-2-
CRL.P No. 101173 of 2017
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
Heard Sri Aravind D.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer.
"Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein above, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
(a) To quash the complaint and FIR/Crime No.78 of 2017 registered by Haveri Town Police Station, Haveri for the offences punishable under section 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 of IPC and all further proceedings pursuant to the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
(b) And other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
-3- CRL.P No. 101173 of 2017Haveri Town Police have registered a case in Crime No.78/2017 against the petitioner on 25.05.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 of IPC based on the complaint lodged by Guddappa Mallappar Sangur.
4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that, the complainant was carrying on a hotel business inside Cattle market in the APMC. In that regard, a month earlier there was a scuffle and the petitioner herein Mallikarjuna Haveri who is accused No.2 had told the complainant that he cannot carry on the business in the Cattle market within the premises of APMC without prior permission and in furtherance there of on 24.05.2017, an incident occurred around 11.00 p.m. Whereby the present petitioner and others assaulted the complainant with a sharp edged weapon whereby the complainant sustained injury and thus sought for action.
5. After registering the case, police are investigating the matter. In the meantime, the petitioner -4- CRL.P No. 101173 of 2017 has sought for quashing of the complaint on the following grounds.
It is submitted that the Petitioner has not committed any offence much less the offences alleged against him. Therefore, the interference of this Court is very much necessary.
It is submitted that the said complaint is totally false, frivolous and made only with an intention to harass and demoralize the Petitioner and at the instance of the ill-wishers of the Petitioner.
It is submitted that, there is 1 day delay in filing the complaint, incident alleged to have taken place at about 11 pm on 24/05/2017 and complaint came to be filed on 25/05/2017 at about 18.30 hours. FIR came to be registered at about 18.45 hours; even though Respondent Police Station is situated within 1 and 1/2 km from the alleged scene of offence. No any plausible explanation is forthcoming for the said inordinate delay in filing the complaint. That itself shows that the complainant took time to concoct a false case against the Petitioner; this itself is sufficient to seek interference of this Hon'ble Court.
-5- CRL.P No. 101173 of 2017Complainant is alleged to have been treated in the District Hospital, Haveri; he has given the history as follows "assault at 11 pm at Hangal road by mob". That itself shows that Petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of alleged incident and he has not taken part in the alleged crime. Otherwise Complainant would have stated name of the Petitioner before the Medical officer. Certified Copy of the MLC Register is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-C. Petitioner being the President of APMC, Haveri, on 12/04/2017 tried to take action against the unauthorised occupants in the Cattle Market. The persons including the complainant had assaulted the Petitioner with Chappal, Club and Hands and also kicked him. Therefore, Petitioner has filed a Complaint in Town Police Station, Haveri which came to be registered in Crime No. 41/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 148, 143, 147, 355, 323, 353, 324 r/w. 149 of IPC Copy Complaint as well as FIR are produced herewith and marked as Annexure-D. It is submitted that in the NEWS papers it was reported about the unauthorised occupants in the Cattle Market and it was causing -6- CRL.P No. 101173 of 2017 inconvenience to the public and was also causing public nuisance. It was also reported in the NEWS Papers that APMC President tried to take action against the unauthorised occupants and unauthorised occupants assaulted the President himself. There was a agitation by the Farmers condemning the incident. All these things appeared in the NEWS Papers. Copies of the relevant NEWS Papers are produced herewith and marked as Annexure-E series. Even there is a CD containing photos of preparation and assault on the Petitioner on 12/04/2017.
The Petitioner being the President of APMC, Haveri tried to take legal action against the illegal occupants in the cattle Market and tried to prevent illegal activities in the said place. Therefore, occupants including the Complainant have a revengeful attitude towards the Petitioner. Therefore, Complainant has filed a False and Concocted Complaint against the Petitioner in order to harass him and de- moralize him in the eye of the public. It is nothing but a abuse of process of law which needs to be nipped in the bud.
From the above aspect it is very much clear that continuation of such proceedings would be -7- CRL.P No. 101173 of 2017 manifestly unjust and unfair; to prevent the abuse of the process of Court, the interference of this Hon'ble Court is absolutely necessary in the interest of Justice.
The present criminal case filed against the petitioner herein is a afterthought and filed as a counter blast to save their skin and to harass the Petitioner. That the initiation of the Criminal proceeding on the basis of false compliant would not only cause more harassment to the petitioner but would also definitely discourage the law abiding citizens like petitioner.
To prevent abuse of process of the Court and to save the petitioner from a false and malicious prosecution interference of this Court is required. Viewed from any angle the interference of this Hon'ble Court is just and necessary to meet the ends of justice.
Viewed from any angle the complaint and FIR suffers from several legal infirmities and cannot sustain in the eye of law. Any other ground or grounds not specifically pleaded will be urged at the time of hearing with due notice to other side and with due permission of this Hon'ble Court.
-8- CRL.P No. 101173 of 20176. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri Aravind D.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the complainant himself is at fault, inasmuch as he was conducting the Hotel business in the Cattle market within the vicinity of the APMC yard without there being any licence whatsoever. In that regard, legal action was contemplated against the complainant by issuing necessary legal notice.
7. However, without adhering to the callings of the legal notice, complainant continued to carry on the business and in that regard force has been used by the officials of the APMC, for which in order to protect his illegal hotel business, the complainant has lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and others. In support of his argument, he has relied on the paper cuttings where-
under news items have been published much earlier to the incident stating that, the complainant himself had assaulted the petitioner herein and despite lodging a complaint, the police have not investigated the said -9- CRL.P No. 101173 of 2017 complaint seriously and is now trying to harm the petitioner and therefore, sought for allowing the petition.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition on the ground that prima facie materials reveal that the complainant has sustained blood injury and there are eye witnesses to the incident whereby the case needs to be investigated by the police properly and appropriate report is to be filed.
9. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.
10. Admittedly, the complainant does not possess any licence issued by the APMC or authorized person to carry on the Hotel business in the cattle market of APMC yard.
11. An action was contemplated much earlier to the present complaint by the officials of the APMC in accordance with law. There was a scuffle earlier, in that
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 101173 of 2017regard, the very petitioner had lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional police almost a month earlier to the date of incident. The said matter was not properly investigated by the police for the reasons best known to them.
12. When the matter stood thus, the alleged incident said to have been taken place on 24.05.2017.
Paper cuttings of the news items that were reported on 12.04.2017, 13.04.2017, 14.04.2017, 16.04.2017 and 20.04.2017 clearly show that there was an action contemplated against the complainant for removal of his hotel from the Cattle market in the APMC yard.
13. Admittedly, the complainant could not have carried on the hotel business in the cattle market of APMC yard without there being any proper licence. When an action was contemplated against him, a scuffle has taken place and in that scuffle, the complainant had even assaulted the very petitioner itself. In this regard, a complaint was also lodged on 12.04.2017 to the Town
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 101173 of 2017Police Station Haveri, and a case came to be registered in Crime No.41/2017 against the complainant and others.
14. When the matter stood thus, subsequent to lodging of the complaint by the complainant stating that the petitioner has assaulted him with a sharp edged weapon on 24.05.2017 cannot be countenanced in law as it is a counter blast to the complaint that has already been lodged by the petitioner herein. If the investigating agency had properly investigated the case in Crime No.41/2017, probably the alleged incident on 24.05.2017 itself would not have taken place.
15. Be it what it may, the material on record clearly shows that the complaint lodged by the complainant is more in the nature a counter blast. Further, though served with the notice, he failed to appear before this Court to substantiate the complaint allegations. Since the matter is pending before this Court there is no investigation in the matter further.
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 101173 of 201716. Suffice to say that the complaint has been lodged by the petitioner herein more than a month earlier against the very same complainant and action was also contemplated legally against him, subsequent complaint lodged by the complainant is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, requires interference by exercising the power vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, following order.
ORDER The petition is hereby allowed.
Further proceedings in Crime No.78/2017 of Haveri Town Police Station registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 307 and 324 of IPC are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM