Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 172 (KAR)

Venkatesh B. H. v. State

2023-02-01

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. A FIR was registered for the offences under Ss. 323, 324, 504, 420, 376, 506, 34 of IPC alleging that the accused No.1 had induced the 2nd respondent to part with the sum of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 promising to purchase a car, and thereafter the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in all received a sum of Rs.18, 07, 500.00 for purchasing a car in the name of the 2nd respondent, and when the 2nd respondent demanded to return the money, the accused threatened to respondent No.2 with dire consequences, and thereafter the accused No.3 lodged FIRs before the various police stations to harass him. On, 19/5/2016 at 9.30 p.m. and on 20/5/2016 at about 2.30 p.m., the accused came to his house and gave life threat and accused No.1 had forcible sexual intercourse with his wife. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - accused No.2 submits that the alleged incident has taken place on 19/5/2016 and 20/5/2016 respectively, and the complaint was lodged on 4/9/2016 without offering any plausible explanation. He further submits that the dispute between the parties arises out of financial transactions, which is evident from the statement of the wife of the 2nd respondent. Hence, he submits that the FIR was lodged with malice and without probable cause. 3. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent - State submits that the allegation made in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offence, and veracity of allegation requires to be investigated. Hence, the registration of FIR does not warrant any interference. 4. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The Police during the course of investigation have recorded the statement of the wife of the respondent No.2, and in the said statement, she has stated that her husband was having financial transaction with the accused, and the allegation that the accused committed offence of rape is totally false, and the said allegation is with an intention to damage her reputation. 6. 6. The alleged incident has taken place on 19/5/2016 and 20/5/2016, and the FIR was lodged on 4/9/2016 without offering any plausible explanation which clearly implies that FIR was lodged with malice and without probable cause, and the dispute between the parties arise out the financial transactions, however, given a criminal texture. In the absence of any material to substantiate the claim that the petitioner-accused No.2 has committed aforesaid offences, the FIR registered against the petitioner accused No.2 is without any substance. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that, the continuation of the criminal investigation against the petitioner-accused No.2 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed; ii) Impugned FIR in Crime No.311/2016 registered by the Byatarayanapura Police Station insofar it relates to petitioner-accused No.2 is hereby quashed.