Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 874 (KAR)

L. J. Malathi v. State of Karnataka

2014-10-09

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2014
Judgment : 1. The Petitioner: Party-in-person is present before the court and argued the matter. I have perused the records. 2. The petitioner submitted that a false case has been foisted against her by one Padma, w/o. Narasappa on 12.06.2013 and the police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet in C.C. No.3146/2013. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in the said criminal case. 3. Perusal of the records disclose that on 12.06.2013 a lady by name Padma, w/o. Narasappa lodged a complaint against this petitioner stating that on 12.06.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. the petitioner herein suddenly went to the upstairs of the house of the complainant and abused her in filthy language and also restrained her wrongfully and also assaulted her on her cheek and threatened her with dire consequences of killing her and also threw stones to the house of the complainant and broken the glasses of the windows. On these allegations, FIR came to be registered on 12.06.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. The records also disclose that the police have visited the spot and conducted mahazar. The petitioner contended that there are some discrepancies in the mahazar in describing the boundaries of the property. The charge sheet papers also disclose that one Ravi, Kiran Kumar and others are the eye-witnesses to the incident. The entire charge sheet papers filed before this court disclose that the said witnesses have reiterated the contents of the FIR. 4. The records produced before this Court also show that the petitioner has also filed a complaint against said Smt. Padma and others by name Narasappa, Chaitra, Chethan, making allegations that on the same day at about 9.45 a.m., the said persons have prevented her from moving anywhere and for about 15 minutes they wrongfully restrained her and also they threatened her with dire consequences etc. The police have also registered a case in Crime No.115/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 448, 504 r/w. 34 IPC. The said FIR was registered at 11.15 a.m. on the same day, ie. 12.06.2013. The police have also investigated the said matter and filed charge sheet. In that case, the petitioner and others by name Manoj, Vasantha, Yashwanth and Shivappa are stated to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. The said FIR was registered at 11.15 a.m. on the same day, ie. 12.06.2013. The police have also investigated the said matter and filed charge sheet. In that case, the petitioner and others by name Manoj, Vasantha, Yashwanth and Shivappa are stated to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. The petitioner has drawn my attention to some discrepancies with regard to mentioning of the boundaries of the property in the said mahazar. 5. Looking to the above circumstances, it is clear that both the incidents alleged to have been taken place between 9.45 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. The petitioner contended that the complaint filed by her is genuine and the complaint filed by Smt. Padma is a false one, and prays for quashing of the case filed by Smt. Padma. 6. While exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this court cannot find-out falsity or truth of the allegations made against each other by the parties to the proceeding and also the statement of the witnesses cannot be appreciated and discrepancies in the mahazar cannot be sorted-out by this court. That exercise has to be done by the trial court and all these things have to be established by the parties to the proceedings before the trial Court either at the time of hearing before framing of charges or at the time of recording evidence before the court. The veracity of the statement of the witnesses cannot be questioned under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and that has to be tested by the parties by means of cross-examination of witnesses on each side. 7. The petitioner further contends that she cannot go to the court to attend each and every case as those are all false cases. At this stage, the truthfulness of the cases filed by either Smt. Padma or by the petitioner cannot be considered by this court by writing a detailed judgment by appreciating the statement of the witnesses, mahazar, etc. In this regard, it is worth to note here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9SCC 460] , wherein the it has been observed thus: - "Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9SCC 460] , wherein the it has been observed thus: - "Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie." From the above observation it is clear that, on reading of the FIR and the charge sheet papers if the allegations made are sufficient to attract any of the penal provisions, the court should not quash such proceedings unless there are any extraneous reasons for quashing of the proceedings. 8. In another decision in State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa and Another [ 2002(3) SCC 89 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that,- "The High Court being the Highest Courts of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected ad produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find-out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegation of mala fides against the informant is of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings." 9. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegation of mala fides against the informant is of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings." 9. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that one case by this petitioner and another case by one Smt. Padma against petitioner about the incident that has taken place between 9.45 to 10.30 a.m.. It appears they may be case and counter cases and they should be tried by the same Magistrate simultaneously. However, if the petitioner has got any materials to show that the case has been maliciously filed and whether the materials collected by the police are not sufficient to put the petitioner on trial, then she can make an application before the trial Court for her discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. In that event, the trial Court without being persuaded by any of the observations made by this court, in this order, shall dispose of the said application in accordance with law considering all the materials on record, as expeditiously as possible, but not exceeding three months from the date of filing of such application. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.