Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 562 (KAR)

Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. State of Karnataka

2017-03-07

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2017
ORDER : K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the records. 2. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Crime No. 3/2017 registered by Hirebagewadi Police Station on the basis of the reference by the Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections 141, 146, 148, 339, 351, 383, 441, 489, 506 of IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a civil suit pending before the civil Court was disposed of on 27.09.2016 adjudicating the rights of the parties holding that, earlier there was a partition between the parties. Being aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent has been making hectic attempts to harass the petitioners by filing a false complaint against the petitioners herein. Secondly, the learned counsel contends before this court that the complaint averments also do not sufficiently disclose the offences against the petitioners. Further, he submits that the complaint against the petitioners has been filed only with an intention to unnecessarily harass them, on these grounds, the learned counsel submits that the FIR requires to be quashed. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 1992 (supp)(1) 335 : ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ), between State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. The guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case are as follows:- '8.1. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 1992 (supp)(1) 335 : ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ), between State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. The guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case are as follows:- '8.1. In the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or 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 guide-17 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) 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; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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; (c) where the un-controverted 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; (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under 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; (g) 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.' 4. In this particular case, the learned counsel invokes Guideline No. 7 to demonstrate that the criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with mala fides and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. 5. Now let me consider the factual aspects of the case to ascertain whether it falls within the above said category of cases. 6. The complaint averments discloses that, in-spite of the pendency of the civil case before the court, it is alleged that the complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging that on 12.04.2016 at about 4.00,p.m., the petitioners have threatened the complainant and others with dire consequences and also threatened them stating that they will take away the life of the complainant and others etc. Again on 16.05.2016 in the night at 11.00 p.m., the accused persons (petitioners) have wrongfully entered into their land and on 17.05.2016 also they have assaulted the complainant and others etc. Further, it is alleged in the private complaint that the accused persons are making hectic attempts to assault and create threat in the mind of the complainant and they have also threatened them with dire consequences of killing them etc. It is specifically stated that in spite of making such allegations, the police have not taken any action against culprits. Therefore, it appears the private complaint came to be lodged and the learned Magistrate has referred the complaint for investigation. 7. Of course, Respondent No. 2 has filed a suit before the First Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belgaum, wherein the court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff (respondent herein) with costs. The said suit was disposed of on 27.09.2016. However, the complaint was filed in the month of June 2016, much prior to the disposal of the suit. The complaint averments, as could be seen, constitute some offences alleged in the complaint, which requires to be investigated by the police. At this stage, whether the complaint was filed maliciously or it is manifestly instituted with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners cannot be conclusively ascertained and that has to be tested during the course of investigation. The complaint averments, as could be seen, constitute some offences alleged in the complaint, which requires to be investigated by the police. At this stage, whether the complaint was filed maliciously or it is manifestly instituted with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners cannot be conclusively ascertained and that has to be tested during the course of investigation. Mere pendency of the civil suit between the parties would not enable his court to conclusively draw an inference that the incidents, which are alleged in the complaint, have not at all taken place. 8. In the said circumstances, only during the course of investigation the police have to find out whether such incidents alleged in the complaint have actually taken place or not, or whether there is any role played by the petitioners and only thereafter they have to file a report before the court, in accordance with law. Therefore, under the said circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the investigation, which is statutorily entrusted to the police. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.