Karnataka High Court
Imran Siddiqui vs State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.10023 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.10029 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.10023 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
IMRAN SIDDIQUI
S/O HIMAYUN AHMED SIDDIQUI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.2278, 6TH CROSS
BASAVESHWARA ROAD
K.R.MOHAM, MYSURU - 570 004.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI PRAVEEN KAMATH M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE
REP. BY THE SPP OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. SRI ASHOKA S.,
S/O SHEKHARAPPA
OCCUPATION: CONTRACTOR,
RESIDING AT 4TH MAIN , 6TH CROSS,
DAVANAGERE TOWN,
DAVANAGERE,
KARNATAKA - 577 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S.HEGDE, SPP - II A/W
SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR NO.05.05.2022
IN CRIME NO.0068/2022 AND COMPLAINT DTD.05.5.2022 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 384, 504, 506 READ
WITH 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 REGISTERED BY THE R-1
HARIHARA RURAL POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC HARIHARRA DAVANAGERE
DIST A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-A
AND B.
IN WRIT PETITION No.10029 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. IMRAN SIDDIQUI
S/O HIMAYUN AHMED SIDDIQUI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2278
6TH CROSS
BASAVESHWARA ROAD,
K R MOHAM
MYSURU - 570 004.
3
2. B.ASHOK KUMAR
S/O R.BHOGESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT JOGIMATTI ROAD
5TH CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI PRAVEEN KAMATH M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION
DAVANAGERE
REP. BY THE SPP OFFICE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI MUBARK
S/O ABDUL WAJID
OCCUATION: BUSINESSMAN
RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS,
VINAYAKA BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE
KARNATAKA - 577 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S.HEGDE, SPP-II A/W
SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR DTD 01.05.2022
IN CRIME NO.0143 OF 2022 AND COMPLAINT DTD 01.05.2022 FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE US 420, 384, 34 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860 REGISTERED BY THE R1 DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE
STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
4
(SR.DN) AND CJM, DAVANAGERE DIST, DAVANAGERE, A COPY OF
WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.07.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The sole petitioner in W.P.No.11023 of 2022 and 1st petitioner in W.P.No.11029 of 2022 would be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.11029 of 2022 would be referred as such in this order.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.10023 of 2022 calls in question registration of crime in Crime No.68 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 384, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC and the petitioners in W.P.No.10029 of 2022 call in question FIR in Crime No.143 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 384, 420 and 34 of the IPC.
5
3. Heard Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions, Sri V.S.Hegde, Special Public Prosecutor-II for respondent No.1 and Sri P.Rudrappa, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant in Writ Petition No.10029 of 2022. The complainant/respondent No.2 in W.P.No.10023 of 2022 though served is unrepresented.
4. Brief facts that lead to the filing of the present petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
A complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners on 01-05-2022 alleging that the petitioners in Writ Petition No.10029 of 2022 have threatened the complainant and have extracted money and are demanding Rs.2/- lakhs again. Based upon this, the petitioners were arrested and taken to custody. After the petitioners obtained bail another complaint is registered on 05-05-2022 with the same allegation by a different complainant. In the said complaint the allegation was only against the petitioner. This 6 forms part of Writ Petition No.10023 of 2022. Registration of these FIRs is called in question by the petitioners in these petitions.
5. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioners would vehemently contend that a bare perusal at the complaints would clearly indicate that they are planted ones against the petitioners as the allegations in the complaints are that the petitioners had threatened and sought to extract money about 8 months back before registration of complaints. If it were to be extraction of money, it ought to have been reported immediately and delay in filing the complaints is fatal to the investigation even.
6. On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor-II representing the State would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that once a cognizable offence is reported with whatever delay, it would be a matter of investigation and the petitioners cannot call registration of 7 FIRs in question on their very registration, as investigation has not progressed any further. The police may investigate and even file a 'B' report if there is no truth in the allegation and, therefore, would seek dismissal of the petitions. He would submit that his submissions be taken as objections to the petitions themselves.
7. The learned counsel Sri P.Rudrappa representing the 2nd respondent in Writ Petition No.10029 of 2022 would again refute the submissions of the learned senior counsel to contend that there is explanation in the complaints for delay of 9 months in registering the complaints, which was due to fear generated by the petitioners. He would also submit that the complainant is not available for filing of statement of objections and has only given instructions. Therefore, his arguments be taken as objections to the petition. 8
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
9. First of the complaint that comes about against the petitioners is impugned in Writ Petition No.10029 of 2022 which becomes crime in Crime No.143 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 384, 420 and 34 of the IPC. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint, the same is quoted hereunder for the purpose of quick reference:
"¢£ÁAPÀ:01-05-2022 UÉ ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï zÁªÀtUÉgÉ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ.
EAzÀ ªÀÄĨÁgÀPï vÀAzÉ C§ÄݯïªÁfzï 30 ªÀµÀð, ªÁå¥ÁgÀ «£ÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÀUÀgÀ 1 £Éà PÁæ¸ï, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ 9742157999.
¸Áé«Ä, «µÀAiÀÄ: PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ £À¤ßAzÀ 4 ®PÀë ºÀt QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ FUÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ 2 ®PÀë ºÀt ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ MqÀÄØwÛgÀĪÀ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝÃPï «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ.
***** 9 F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄĨÁgÀPï vÀAzÉ C§ÄÝ¯ï ªÁfzï, 30 ªÀµÀð, ªÁå¥ÁgÀ, «£ÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÀUÀgÀ, 1£Éà PÁæ¸ï, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÄÀ ä°è PÉÆÃgÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ zÁªÀtUÉgÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄgÀ½£À ªÁå¥ÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÀjºÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÁªÉÃj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄgÀ½£À ¥Á¸ï (¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV) ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄgÀ½£À ªÁå¥ÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄgÀ½£À ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É FUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7-8 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÀ¼É ¨Áw ¨ÉÊ¥Á¸ï ¸À«ÄÃ¥À ªÀÄgÀ½£À ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÉÎ AiÀiÁgÀÄ E§âgÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CqÀØ ºÁQ £Á£ÀÄ dÄ°áÃPÀgï JA§ÄªÀªÀ£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¨Á¸ï PÁj£À°èzÁÝgÉ CªÀgÀ §½ §AzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ£À §½ £À£ÀßzÉãÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝPÉÌ dÄ°áPÀgï JA§ÄªÀªÀ£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÉAzÀÄ w½¢¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À qÁ£ï EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÞÃPï JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉzÀj ¯Áj¬ÄAzÀ PɼÀUÀqÉ §AzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ PÀĽwzÀÝ PÁj£À §½ ºÉÆÃV CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¹zÉ£ÀÄ DUÀ PÁj£À PɼÀUÀqÉ E½zÀÄ §AzÀ ªÀåQÛ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝÃPï £À£ÀUÉ J¯Áè C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ UÉÆwÛzÁÝgÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß C£ÀĪÀÄw E®èzÉà ªÀÄgÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÃUÉ ¸ÁUÁtÂPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£ÀUÉ 4 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀgÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ ªÀÄgÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÁtÂPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¤UÉ ºÉzÀj PÉÆAqÀÄ CtÚ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ §AzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ºÀ¼É ¨Áw ¨ÉÊ¥Á¸ï ©æqïÓ ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀÄ ¨sÉÃn DUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý CªÀ£À eÉÆvÉUÉ EzÀÝ dÄ°áÃPÀgï £ÀA§gï ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ C°èAzÀ ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ zÁªÀtUÉgÉUÉ §AzÀÄ C£ï¯ÉÆÃqï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
CzÉà ¢£À ¸ÀAeÉ £Á£ÀÄ dÄ°áÃPÀgï £ÀA§gïUÉ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr ¸Àgï £Á£ÀÄ J°èUÉ §gÀ° JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ ºÀ¼É ¨Áw ¨ÉÊ¥Á¸ï ©æqïÓ ºÀwÛgÀ ¨Á JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï£À°è 2 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ EzÀÝ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÄÀ DUÀ dÄ°áÃPÀgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝÃPï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ E§âgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ vÀA¢zÀÝ ¨ÉAeï PÁj¤AzÀ E½zÀÄ PɼÀUÀqÉUÉ ¤AwzÀÝgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝÃPï §½ §AiÀiÁå £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀtÚzÁV ªÀÄgÀ½£À ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀªÀ£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁPÉ F jÃw zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛâÝj JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝÃPï £À£ÀUÉ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÁr ¤Ã£ÀÄ CzÀÄ ºÉÃUÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®èzÉà §Ä¹£É¸ï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀĪÀÄä£É ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è £ÀªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄUÀjUÉ ºÉý ¤£Àß PÉÊPÁ®Ä ªÀÄÄj¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¤UÉ ºÉzÀj §AiÀiÁå FUÀ £À£Àß §½ PÉêÀ® 2 ®PÀì ºÀt«zÉ JA¢zÀÝPÉÌ CzÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß PÉʬÄAzÀ QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ G½zÀ 2 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £Á¼É ¨É½îUÎÉ vÀAzÀÄPÉÆqÀÄ E®èªÁzÀ°è ¤£Àß ¯Áj ¨ÉAQ ºÀZÀÄÑvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁgÀ£Éà ¢£À ¨É½îUÉÎ dÄ°áÃPÀgï UÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÉà ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄvÉÛ 2 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝÃQUÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DUÀ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝÃPï ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 2 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄ E®èªÁzÀ°è ¤£ÀߣÀÄß fêÀ ¸À»vÀ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £À£ÀUÉ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ £À¤ßAzÀ 4 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß QwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ E£ÀÆß ®PÀë-®PÀë ºÀtPÉÌ ¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖgÀĪÀ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝÃPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dÄ°áÃPÀgï «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÆr¸À¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝÃPïUÉ JzÀjPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
(Emphasis added) 10 The allegation in the complaint is that the complainant one Mubarak who claims to be the owner/driver of a lorry and is in the business of transportation of sand alleges that about 7 to 8 months before 01-05-2022 the petitioners had stopped his vehicle and had demanded money for further movement of the vehicle. The petitioners are described as underworld dons. Vague dates are given in this regard. On the basis of the said complaint, the aforesaid crime is registered for the offences noted supra. Based upon this, the police conduct a search in the house of the petitioner and drew up a panchanama. No amount is recovered. After conduct of panchanama on 02-05- 2022 and arrest of the petitioner, a second complaint is registered by a different complainant which is impugned in the companion writ petition. The 2nd complaint is verbatim similar to the first complaint supra. The 2nd complaint is registered on 05-05-2022 and reads as follows:
"¢£ÁAPÀ:05/05/2022 EªÀjUÉ 11 ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ oÁuÉ ºÀjºÀgÀ.
EAzÀ, C±ÉÆÃPÀ .J¸ï vÀAzÉ ±ÉÃRgÀ¥Àà, 40 ªÀµÀð, ªÀÄgÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À¨ï PÀAmÁæPÀÖgï PÉ®¸À, «£ÉÆç£ÀUÀgÀ 4£Éà ªÉÄãï, 6£Éà PÁæ¸ï, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ.
ªÉÆ.£ÀA: 9980199906.
¸Áé«Ä, «µÀAiÀÄ; ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ £À¤ßAzÀ 8 ®PÀë ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ E£ÀÆß ºÀt ¤ÃqÀªÀAvÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ MqÀÄØwÛgÀĪÀ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀºÀZÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ.
**** F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ C±ÉÆÃPÀ .J¸ï vÀAzÉ ±ÉÃRgÀ¥Àà , 40 ªÀµÀð, ªÀÄgÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À¨ï PÀAmÁæPÀÖgï PÉ®¸À, «£ÉÆç£ÀUÀgÀ, 4£Éà ªÉÄãï, 6£Éà PÁæ¸ï, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ zÁªÀtUÉgÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄgÀ½£À ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÁªÉÃj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ LgÀtÂAiÀÄ°è EªÀiÁªÀiï ¸Á¨ï ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ °Ãeï ¥Á¬ÄAmï ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ °Ãeï ¥Á¬ÄAmï £À°è ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeï ªÉÄAmï PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¸ÀĪÀÄgÀÄ 04 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄgÀ½£À ªÁå¥ÁgÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:13/09/2021 gÀAzÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ºÀjºÀgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÄÀ ªÀ ±ÁAw¸ÁUÀgÀ qÁ¨ÁzÀ°è HlPÉÌ PÀĽwgÀĪÁUÀ AiÀiÁgÉÆà M§â ªÀåQÛ fÃ¥ï PÁA¥Á¸ï PÁj£À°è §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ dÄ°áPÀgï, £ÀªÀÄä ¨Á¸ï PÁj£À°èzÁÝgÉ CªÀgÀ §½ §AzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ£À §½ £À£ÀßzÉãÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄ CAvÁ ºÉýzÀÝPÌÉ dÄ°áPÀgï JA§ÄªÀªÀ£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÉAzÀÄ w½¢¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À qÁ£ï EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPï JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉzÀj CªÀgÀÄ PÀĽwzÀÝ fÃ¥ï PÁA¥Á¸ï PÁgï £À §½ ºÉÆÃV ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¹zÉ£ÀÄ. DUÀ PÁj¤AzÀ E½zÀÄ §AzÀ ªÀåQÛ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ, EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPï, £À£ÀUÉ J¯Áè C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÆwÛzÁÝgÉ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß C£ÀĪÀÄw E®èzÉà ªÀÄgÀ½£À °Ãeï £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀÄªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£ÀUÉ 10 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀgÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ ªÀÄgÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÁtÂPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ©qÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉý ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¤UÉ ºÉzÀjPÉÆAqÀÄ CuÁÚ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ §AzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß EzÉà ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ¨sÉÃnAiÀÄUÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉý £Á£ÀÄ C°èAzÀ PÁgï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CzÉà ¢£À ¸ÀAeÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÀjºÀgÀ ²ªÀªÆ É UÀÎ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ±ÁAw¸ÁUÀgÀ qÁ¨ÁzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ¨ÉÊPï£À°è 04 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. CUÀ dÄ®áPÀgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPï JA§ÄªÀªÀ£ÀÄ vÁªÀÅ vÀA¢zÀÝ PÁgï¤AzÀ E½zÀÄ PɼÀUÉ ¤AwzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPï §½ ¨sÀAiÀiÁå £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀtÚzÁV ªÀÄgÀ½£À ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀªÀ£ÀÄ, £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É KPÉ F jÃw zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃj JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPï £À£ÀUÉ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÁr ¤Ã£ÀÄ CzÉÔÃUÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®èzÉà §Ä¹£É¸ï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄ, ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀĪÀÄä£Éà ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è, £ÀªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄUÀjUÉ ºÉý ¤£Àß PÉÊPÁ®Ä ªÀÄÄj¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¤UÉ ºÉzÀj ¨sÀAiÀiÁå £À£Àß §½ PÉêÀ® 04 12 ®PÀë ºÀt vÀA¢zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý CªÀgÀ PÉÊUÉ PÉÆmÉÖ£ÀÄ. DUÀ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPï G½zÀ 06 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £Á¼É ¨É½UÉÎ vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄ E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ¤£Àß PÁjUÉ ¨ÉAQ ºÀZÀÄÑvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÄÀ . £Á£ÀÄ EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV 01 wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:14/10/2021 gÀAzÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ºÀjºÀgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ ±ÁAw¸ÁUÀgÀ qÁ¨ÁzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÁUÀ dÄ°àÃPÀgï ºÁUÀÆ ¹¢ÝPï £À£ßÀ PÁjUÉ CqÀØ §AzÀÄ G½zÀ 06 ®PÀë ºÀtªÉ°è CAvÁ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ ºÉzÀj £À£ßÀ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß C°èAiÉÄà ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è ºÉÆÃV 04 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPï gÀªÀgÀ PÉÊUÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DUÀ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPï ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ G½zÀ 02 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß DzÀµÀÄÖ ¨ÉÃUÀ vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄ E®èªÁzÀ°è ¤£ÀߣÀÄß fêÀ¸À»vÀ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ £À¤ßAzÀ 08 ®PÀë ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ E£ÀÆß ®PÀë ®PÀë ºÀtPÉÌ ¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖgÀĪÀ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dÄ®áPÀgï «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÄÀ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÆr¸À¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ EªÀiÁæ£ï ¹¢ÝPïUÉ ºÉzÀjPÉÆAqÀÄ F ¢ªÀ¸À vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
(Emphasis added) The complainant in the 2nd complaint also narrates that on 13.09.2021 the petitioner had blocked the way and demanded Rs.10,00,000/-. This becomes a crime in Crime No.68 of 2022. The complainant in the said case though is served through the jurisdictional police remains unrepresented and the recovery that happens in the entire case is about 128 notes of Rs.500/- denomination and 3 notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination but not from the petitioner. This is recovered from accused No.3 in Crime No.143 of 2022. There is no recovery of any amount from the petitioner.
13
10. What merits consideration is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the complainants are ghost complainants as the allegation in the complaints is that extortion has taken place about 9 months before registration of the complaints. There is no explanation except saying that due to fear there is delay in registration of complaints. If extraction had taken place on 13-09-2021, complaint could not have been registered on 05-05-5022. Similar goes with the earlier complaint and if complaints are read in juxtaposition they are verbatim similar. In fact, a few paragraphs are copied and pasted between the complaints registered on 01-05-2022 and 05-05-2022. Therefore, the very registration of crime or the happening of the incident becomes doubtful, as delay in registering the complaints gives rise to embellishment to a particular complaint as is held by the Apex Court in the case of MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA AND 14 OTHERS v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER1 , wherein the Apex Court considering the delay in registration of FIR has held as follows:
"30. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. In our opinion, such extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by Respondent 2 herein against the appellants, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, Respondent 2 herein has tried to rope the appellants in criminal proceedings. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the FIR deserves to be quashed. In this context, it is apt to quote the following decision of this Court in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 :
(2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] wherein it was held as under : (SCC p. 383, para 12) "12. The FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of the eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large 1 (2016) 9 SCC 1 15 number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first-hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question."
31. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not, must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. If on consideration of the relevant materials, the court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, it will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed in order to collect materials for proving the offence.
32. In the above backdrop, it is also imperative to discuss the scope of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The appellants before us filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of the FIR on the ground that the FIR was filed after a delay of 5 (five) years and is barred by territorial jurisdiction. The High Court, on the other hand, after taking note of the fact that the investigation is in the final stage in the matter and a charge-sheet is ready to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, ordered for its continuance without taking into consideration that it is barred by law. The court at Durg did not take notice of the fact that there is a legal bar engrafted in the matter for its continuance and the proceedings have been maliciously instituted after a delay of five years with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the appellants."
The other judgments relied on by the learned SPP-II and the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent, were all considering delay and explanation thereto. In the case of SHANTABEN BHURABHAI BHURIYA v. ANAND 16 ATHABHAI CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS - Criminal Appeal No.967 of 2021 decided on 26th October, 2021, the Apex Court has held that it was the specific case of the victim that an attempt was made in getting the FIR registered on the very next day of the incident. That was not registered and a private complaint was filed four days thereafter. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held that delay was not fatal as the complainant had demonstrated that a sincere effort was made to register a complaint on 7-09-2013 which was refused to be registered and as such a private complaint was registered on 13-09-2013. Therefore, the delay therein was explained and it was only 4 days delay from the date of the incident.
11. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent/complainant in the case of RAVINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB - 2001 Crl.L.J. 4242 the same would become 17 distinguishable on the facts in the case before the Apex Court. In the said case the Apex Court was considering whether the FIR was registered after a delay of two days and whether those two days would be fatal to the case of the victim or the prosecution later. The Apex Court in the said judgment also holds that complaint should be registered without any loss of time and was declared that it was not to be fatal on the ground that it was only two days and the delay of two days in lodging the FIR cannot become a ground to quash the proceedings at the stage of investigation.
12. As observed hereinabove, in the case at hand, the delay is not two days or four days. The delay is 9 months. In the complaint registered on 1-05-2022 the period indicated is about 7 to 8 months ago and in the verbatim similar complaint registered which is second in line, the date of the incident is 13-09-2021 and the complaints admittedly are registered after about 9 months i.e., on 01-05-2022 and 05-05-2022. It is 18 here the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA (supra) would be applicable, as the complaints so registered after 9 months are full of embellishments that too vague embellishment. In the teeth of the aforesaid complaints if further investigation or proceedings are permitted to continue, it would degenerate into harassment and result in abuse of the process of law.
13. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL2 has laid down postulates of interference and the same is followed to this day by the Apex Court in plethora of judgments. The Apex Court at paragraph 102 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 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 19 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.
(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 20 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."
(Emphasis supplied) Postulates 1 and 5 would become applicable to the case at hand, as at the perusal of the complaints it would demonstrate two factors i.e., improbability and mala fide intention. Therefore, as observed by the Apex Court, in such cases, further proceedings should not be permitted to continue.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) Registration of crimes in Crime No.68 of 2022 before the Harihara Rural Police and in Crime 21 No.143 of 2022 before Davanagere Rural Police Station are quashed.
In the light of the aforesaid order and for the reasons indicated therein, as a consequence of quashment of the registration of crime against the petitioners, I.A.No.2/2022 wherein the direction that was sought to withdraw the lookout notice against the petitioners would stand allowed and the respondents shall withdraw the lookout notice issued against the petitioners within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
In view of disposal of the main petitions, I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ