Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2236 (KAR)

T. Byregowda v. State Of Karnataka

2020-11-11

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT K.Somashekar, J. - In this petition, the petitioners who are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking to set-aside the order passed by the IX ACMM, Bangalore in Cr.No.308/2016 dated 24.11.2016 permitting to register criminal case for non-cognizable offence against the petitioners and consequently, to quash the registration of FIR in Cr.No.308/2016 of Jnanabharathi Police for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who is appearing through video conferencing and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State who is physically present before the Court. Counsel for Respondent No.2 has not come forward to address his arguments though the matter stands posted for final hearing. 3. The second respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent Jnanabharathi Police alleging that he is the owner of site bearing No.2279 comprised out of Sy.No.3/4 of Gidadakonenahalli village formed by the D Group Employees Association. It is further averred in the complaint that the petitioners came near the site and claimed that they are the owners of the site and threatened the second respondent with dire consequences. 4. Based upon the complaint reported by the second respondent who is a defacto complainant, the Police Inspector of Jnanabharathi Police Station submitted a requisition in NCR No.257/2016 before the IX ACMM, Bangalore city to register the case for non-cognizable offence and permission to investigate the case. The Court below vide order dated 24.11.2016 permitted the respondent police to register the case and to investigate the offence. In compliance of the said order, the first respondent police registered the case in Crime No.308/2016 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court and consequent registering of the case by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.308/2016, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to set-aside the order passed by the trial Court and for quashing of Crime No.308/2016. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the elements of the complaint filed by the second respondent herein. He contends that without there being any ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 506 of IPC, the crime against the petitioners has been registered by the first respondent police. Prima-facie no case has been made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the elements of the complaint filed by the second respondent herein. He contends that without there being any ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 506 of IPC, the crime against the petitioners has been registered by the first respondent police. Prima-facie no case has been made out against the petitioners. In fact, the daughter of the first petitioner who happened to be the wife of the second petitioner, purchased the site through a registered sale deed and they have been in possession of the property. When such being the case, the second respondent attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the property. The second respondent had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the said property against the daughter of the first petitioner namely Smt.Anjana Devi and 22 others in O.S.No.5599/2011. However, the said suit came to be decreed in favour of plaintiff/second respondent herein, the copy of which judgment is produced as Annexure-C to this petition for the purpose of perusal. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Smt.Anjana Devi preferred an appeal before this Court in RFA No.1254/2016. The second respondent herein has entered appearance as a Caveator in the said appeal. This Court has issued an interim order directing both the parties to maintain status quo as on that date over the suit schedule property till further orders. The appeal is pending adjudication. 6. The second limb of the arguments advanced by the petitioners counsel is that since no cognizable offences are alleged, the first respondent sought for the permission from the IX ACMM, Bangalore City to proceed with the investigation and the Court below has erred in permitting the first respondent to register the case against the petitioners. Consequently, the first respondent only with an intention to harass the petitioners has registered the case in Crime No.308/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC without there being any reason or cause of action. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners sought for intervention of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, if not, certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. 7. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners sought for intervention of this Court to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, if not, certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. 7. On the other hand learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the initiation of the case against the petitioners in Crime No.308/2016 which came to be registered by the order of the IX ACMM, Bangalore in order to proceed with the case for investigation. However, there are ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Part-I and Part-II of Section 506 of IPC. Therefore, the investigation has to be proceeded by the investigating agency without there being any obstacles. On these grounds, learned HCGP sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. Having regard to these contentions as taken by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the State, it is relevant to note that based on the complaint report filed by the second respondent/defacto complainant, the case in NCR No.257/2016 came to be registered. Thereafter, the Police Inspector of Jnanabharathi police station submitted a requisition to the Court of IX ACMM, Bangalore City seeking permission to investigate the case. The court below vide order dated 24.11.2016 granted permission to register the case for non-cognizable offence and to investigate the matter. Whereas Section 154 of Cr.P.C. it is said that if there is a cognizable offence, naturally, the investigating agency has to register the case by recording the FIR and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation and to lay the charge sheet after investigation is completed. But in the instant case, though it is not a cognizable offence as alleged, but initially case in NCR No.257/2016 came to be registered and the Police Inspector of Jnanabharathi police sought for permission to register the crime and permission to investigate the case and consequently the case in Crime No.308/2016 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. However, at a cursory glance of the averments made in the complaint report and also the materials available on record, no ingredients constituting either Part-I or Part-II of the offence under Section 506 of IPC has been made out. The complainant himself has requested the jurisdictional police to advice the petitioners not to interfere and sought for protection. However, at a cursory glance of the averments made in the complaint report and also the materials available on record, no ingredients constituting either Part-I or Part-II of the offence under Section 506 of IPC has been made out. The complainant himself has requested the jurisdictional police to advice the petitioners not to interfere and sought for protection. Such being the case, the first respondent has registered the crime with an intention to harass the petitioners. 9. It is also relevant to refer here that the suit in O.S.No.5599/2011 filed by the second respondent seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the disputed property against the daughter of the first petitioner namely Smt.Anjana Devi came to be decreed in favour of second respondent/plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the said Smt.Anjana Devi preferred an appeal before this Court in RFA No.1254/2016 and this court has passed an interim order directing both the parties to maintain status quo. The second respondent has entered his appearance as a Caveator in the above appeal and has knowledge about the pendency of the appeal. The appeal is pending for adjudication. 10. In the instant case, the case in Crime No.308/2016 for the punishable under Section 506 of IPC came to be registered by the first respondent Jnanabharati Police. But to constitute the ingredients of Section 506, the intention of culprits/accused must be to cause alarm to the victim/complainant. Mere expression of words without any intention to cause any sort of alarm would not suffice. So far as to constitute the aforesaid offence, it must be shown that the person charged is actually threatened a particular person who is either arraigned as victim/complainant. But initially on the filing of the complaint by the second respondent, the case has been registered as non-cognizable offence in NCR No.257/2016. But the Police Officer of Jnanabharati Police Station sought permission from the Presiding Officer of IX ACMM, Bangalore city to proceed with the case for investigation. However, the allegation made initially to register the case in NCR No.257/2016, it must be intact relating to the guilt which alleged against the accused. But the Police Officer of Jnanabharati Police Station sought permission from the Presiding Officer of IX ACMM, Bangalore city to proceed with the case for investigation. However, the allegation made initially to register the case in NCR No.257/2016, it must be intact relating to the guilt which alleged against the accused. But based upon the said grievance only to register the NCR and later on obtaining permission even though it is permitted by the concerned Magistrate, it cannot be extending in terms of investigation to secure or otherwise to collect the material evidence to fit in Section 506 of IPC for grave man of accused extending criminal intimidation or otherwise to say threatening to the victim/complainant. The inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. it is encompassed upon if there is any abuse of process of law and also miscarriage of justice to the petitioners, certainly it needs for interference, if not, there shall be miscarriage of justice to either of the parties. 11. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised judicially, judiciously, sparingly and cautiously. Therefore, in this petition it calls for interference for quashing of the case in Crime No.308/2016, if not certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice to the grave man arraigned as accused and also abuse of process of law. Therefore, the circumstances narrated in the petition warrants interference of this Court. 12. For the aforesaid reasons and findings, the petition deserves consideration. Accordingly, I have to proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the IX ACMM, Bangalore in Cr.No.308/2016 is hereby set-aside. The entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Cr.No.308/2016 are hereby quashed.