Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2155 (KAR)

Basavaraj Ramappa Kanagonda v. State Of Karnataka

2020-11-02

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The present petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.1553/2017 pending on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court , for brevity), for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 R/w. Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the said criminal case against him. 2. The summary of the allegations made in the charge sheet filed against the accused is that, on 21.07.2012 at about 5.30 pm, when the present respondent No.2/complainant is said to have parked his motor car on the side of the road leading to Athani- Bijapur, near Aigali cross and was drinking the water getting the same from his driver, all of a sudden, about five persons coming in a jeep stopped there and started abusing him in filthy language, demanding money from him and assaulted him, however, by the intervention of the people, they left the place. 3. Heard the arguments from learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 4. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court would go to show that, originally the complainant had filed a complaint alleging the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC. The summary of the complaint was that, at the time of the alleged incident at 5.30 pm on 21.07.2012, a group of about 20 persons were alleged to have come in 2 four wheeler motor vehicles i.e., one Cruiser and one white colour Indica Vista car and brutally assaulted the complainant. In the said process, while assaulting, the accused also said to have robbed the gold chain weighing about 8 tolas and a gold ring from the complainant. The complainant, however, alleged that, at the time of assault, the accused were in possession of and used sword (talwar), sticks, stones, etc., and mercilessly had beaten the complainant. In the said process, while assaulting, the accused also said to have robbed the gold chain weighing about 8 tolas and a gold ring from the complainant. The complainant, however, alleged that, at the time of assault, the accused were in possession of and used sword (talwar), sticks, stones, etc., and mercilessly had beaten the complainant. However, the charge sheet papers show that, on the next date of the complaint, the very same complainant, who claims himself to be the State President of an association called Karnataka Nava Nirmana Sene, is shown to have given his further statement stating that, at the time of incident, the number of accused were only 5, but not 20 and that they had assaulted him with their hands, but no valuables including the chain or ring were taken away by them, since the complainant did not possess either of them. After recording the alleged further statement of the complainant, the Investigating Officer is shown to have recorded the statements of several of other witnesses, that is from CW4 to CW15 showing them as eyewitnesses to the incident and after complete investigation, they have filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC. 5. In the light of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is total contradiction with respect to the narration of the incident in the complaint to that of further statement of the complainant. With respect to the nature of incident, the total number of accused and the manner of the alleged incident, there is great variation between two statements of the complainant and that itself gives rise to a strong doubt about the occurrence of the alleged incident. Learned counsel further submits that, merely because the petitioner demanded refund of the amount paid by him towards purchase of the car, the complainant has filed a false complaint to avoid refunding him the money. 6. Learned HCGP as well the learned Amicus Curiae in their arguments submit that, though the complaint differs from the alleged further statement of the complainant, but the statements of the eyewitnesses corroborates the further statement of the complainant and give a clear and complete picture of the incident, as such, there is no reason for quashing of the criminal case as prayed in the petition. 7. 7. A thorough perusal of the charge sheet papers would go to show that, admittedly, the complainant, who claims himself to be the State President of an Organization, has in his complaint stated that the total number of the alleged culprits were 20 in number and they came in 2 four wheeler vehicles i.e., one Cruiser and another white colour Indica Vista car bearing registration No.KA-48/M 2768. Nowhere in his complaint he has shown any doubt regarding the total number of persons or the details of the vehicles in which the accused were said to have arrived at the place of incident. On the other hand, he has made it further clear in the complaint that the accused were armed with weapons like sword(talwar), sticks and stones etc., and also stated that they have assaulted him on his nose, head and on his back, whereas in his further statement he has given a total go-bye to all the allegations made by him in the complaint regarding the mode of arrival of the accused to the spot and the alleged manner of assault. In his further statement, he has confined only to state that the accused came in a jeep and parked it behind the car and that there were five persons in the said car, who got down from it. This leads to a greater doubt regarding not only the alleged observation of the complainant, but on the occurrence of the entire incident itself. Had really the complainant was the victim in the alleged incident or was assaulted by the accused, then he would not have made such a great contradiction in his alleged observation. The difference between five persons and twenty persons is a big difference, which in an ordinary course will not be get confused by anyone. Similarly, stating in the complaint that the accused had come armed with weapons like sword(talwar), sticks, stones etc, and keeping mum in the further statement by the very same alleged victim, but confining only to state that they held the collar of his shirt and assaulted him with their legs and hands also makes it highly doubtful to believe his version not just about the manner of the incident, but also about the occurrence of the incident itself. Thirdly and most importantly, when the complainant at the first place has stated that the accused had also snatched the golden chain weighing 8 tolas and a gold ring, came up with a contradiction in the alleged further statement stating that, on the said day he had not worn gold ornaments and the question of accused snatching any of his golden articles does not arise. These apparent contradictions in the complaint with that of the further statement of the accused by themselves go to the root of the case of the prosecution and makes it too shaky. 8. In addition to the above, the complainant nowhere in his complaint has stated about as to how and from whom he was rescued in the alleged incident, whereas the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of not less than 13 witnesses showing them as eyewitnesses, who were said to have witnessed the incident and rescued the complainant. If such a large group had gathered there and some of them had ventured to rescue him, then the complainant should have necessarily mentioned about the same in his complaint at the earliest point of time. But nowhere the complainant has stated anything about the presence of any other person at the time of incident. However, the said improvement appears to have been made subsequently by him in his alleged further statement. Fourthly, even according to the complainant, after some modification in the alleged further statement also, he maintained that the accused, who were subsequently reduced in number from 20 to 5 by the complainant, came in a jeep, whereas the statement of some of the alleged eyewitnesses from CW6 to CW15 are shown to have stated in their statements before the Investigating Officer that the accused came in a single motorcar. Thus, with respect to the alleged description of the vehicle said to have been used by the accused, there is a great variation between the complainant and the alleged eyewitnesses. Added to the above, the very same alleged eyewitnesses, i.e., CW6 to CW15, in their further statements before the Investigating Officer said to have been given after identifying some of the accused, appears to have stated that, those accused came to the spot on the date of the incident in a jeep. Added to the above, the very same alleged eyewitnesses, i.e., CW6 to CW15, in their further statements before the Investigating Officer said to have been given after identifying some of the accused, appears to have stated that, those accused came to the spot on the date of the incident in a jeep. Thus, in the very same statements of the alleged eyewitnesses and their further statements also there is greater discrepancy with respect to the alleged vehicle said to have been used by the accused. This further imbibes greater doubt in the case of the prosecution at the threshold itself. Further the respondents could not place any material before this Court to show that any such vehicle was seized or any panchanama was drawn to give the details of the nature of the vehicle alleged to have been used by the accused in the alleged commission of the crime. 9. All these would lead this Court to accept the contention taken up by the petitioner in the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, may be with reference to a monetary transaction the complainant has ventured to lodge a false complaint against the petitioner in a vindictive manner. Thus to avoid the abuse of process of law, this Court finds it a fit case where its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Entire proceedings initiated against the present petitioner in C.C.No.1553/2017 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, confining to the petitioner stands quashed. The Court while acknowledging the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2 Sri. Abhishek Kalled, recommends honorarium of a sum of not less than Rs.3,000/- payable by the Registry.