Karnataka High Court
Yathish Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27313
CRL.P No. 12065 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12065 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
YATHISH KUMAR
S/O NAGARAJU S M
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NEELAKANTANAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
MADDUR POLICE STATION
MANDYA DISTRICT
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
Digitally signed by B
K
BENGALURU 560 001.
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
2. MS. NAYANA H
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTICT
KARNATAKA 571 428.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED BUT UNRESPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CHARGE SHEET NO.1/2022 (ANNEXURE-J)
DATED 03.01.2022 BERING CR.NO.0322/2021 REGISTERED BY THE
MADDUR POLICE STATION/RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN PENDING
BEFORE THE HON'BLE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27313
CRL.P No. 12065 of 2022
AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 186, 353, 504
OF IPC, 1860 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 504, 341, 353 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, when CWs.1, 2 and 14 while discharging their official duties, at that time, the accused came, abused CWs.1 and 2 in filthy language, and restrained CW1 from proceeding further, and thereafter the accused No.1 by showing his hand against CW1 threatened that, he would not allow him to do work of others unless he completes the work.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State.
4. The petitioner has produced a communication dated 7.8.2021 issued by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department addressed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, which indicates that, the petitioner - accused has filed a complaint against the Additional Director of Land Records for not fixing the boundries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manik Taneja & anr. -vs- State of Karnataka and Anr. in Crl.Appeal No.141/2015 at paras-12 and 13 has held as follows:
-3-NC: 2023:KHC:27313 CRL.P No. 12065 of 2022 "12. A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, that the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out.
13. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:-
"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 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.-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:27313 CRL.P No. 12065 of 2022 Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
5. In the instant case, the essential elements so as to constitute the commission of the aforesaid offences are conspicuously absent, and the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and revengeful intent, since the petitioner - accused had filed a complaint against CW1. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceeding in Criminal Case No.106/2022 arising out of Crime No.0322/2021 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM