Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1337 (KAR)

Vishnu Walmiki v. State of Karnataka

2015-12-14

R.B.BUDHIAL

body2015
ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings registered for the offence punishable under Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in respondent-Police Station Crime No. 115 of 2015. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the petition are that, petitioners 1 and 2 are employee and employer. Petitioner is a sincere and bona fide driver serving in the respondent-Management. There has been small and trivial dispute between them. For settling the dispute the higher authority demanded bribe which has been denied by the petitioner. On coming to know the silent nature of Higher Officers of the Department regarding his cry over corrupt practice the petitioner has made to bring letters for early disposal of his pending case. Inspite of letters there is no action taken by anyone and hence having been frustrated and in anguish petitioner has written a letter as reply to charge-sheet that all his cases and allegations under enquiry are to be tried from CBI, COD and CID or they should be handed over to Pakistan Government. On these grounds he sought for quashing the said complaint. 2. I have heard arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused and also learned Government Pleader for the respondent 1-State so also learned Counsel for respondent 2-complainant. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, according to the petitioner he may not get justice here and for that reason he has made request for transfer of said case to Pakistan Government where he will get justice. Hence, Counsel submitted that inspite of such a request so made same was not considered by the concerned and even no action has been taken to complete the enquiry that was initiated against him. Hence, it is his contention that, it is because of the enmity such proceedings are initiated. Hence, submitted that petition be admitted. 4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no merit in this petition. The allegations made in the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings clearly goes to show that he has made baseless allegations that he will not get justice at the hands of the Court here. He submitted that the charge-sheet is already ready to be filed before the concerned Court. The allegations made in the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings clearly goes to show that he has made baseless allegations that he will not get justice at the hands of the Court here. He submitted that the charge-sheet is already ready to be filed before the concerned Court. Hence, at this stage, he is not entitled for quashing of the proceedings. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent 2-complainant also submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner against the employer are all baseless. He submitted that when the enquiry was initiated neither he is ready to appear before the Enquiry Officer to co-operate and complete the investigation nor he is ready to appear before the concerned Court and he goes on making sending letters with false allegations and even making allegations against the functioning of the judiciary itself. Hence submitted that there is no merit in the petition and same may be rejected. 6. I have perused the averments made in the petition and also the documents produced, i.e., FIR, complaint and other documents produced along with the petition by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Looking to the materials placed on record prima facie it goes to show that the present petitioner is making allegations against the enquiry proceedings as well as the proceedings initiated before the Court of law and he is seeking transfer of his case to Pakistan Government where he will get justice. All such allegations are made by the present petitioner are baseless and not supported by any satisfactory materials. Apart from, that, as submitted by the learned Government Pleader that now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is yet to be filed shortly. When that is the case the concerned Court has to apply its mind to the charge-sheet material to be submitted before the Court and to proceed further in the matter. Under such circumstances at this stage the petitioner has not made out a case to admit the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings. There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, petition is rejected.