1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Dated this the 2nd day of June 2017 Before THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. Criminal Petition No.100660/2017 Between Vijayakumar T. M., S/o. Late Virupakshaswamy, Age: 54 Years, Occ: Chairman of T.M.A.E Society R/o: M.J.Nagar, 2nd Cross, Renuka Krupa, Hosapete Ballari. ...Petitioner (By Sri. V. M. Sheelvant, Advocate) And 1. The State of Karnataka, PSI Hospete Town Police Station, Represented By SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad. 2. Hema, D/o. S.K. Murugodu, Age: About 39 Years, Occ: Household, R/o: Near Prajavani Building, Hosapete, Ballari. ...Respondents (By Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP for R1) (R2 - served) 2 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the entire proceedings against petitioner initiated in Criminal Case No. 970 of 2016 (Hospet Town Crime No.42 of 2016) pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Hosapete, for the offence punishable under Section 506, 509, 498-A, 354(D) And 34 of IPC. This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court, made the following: ORDER
Though the matter is listed for Admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This is a petition filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying the Court to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C. No.970/2016 (Hospet Town PS Crime No.42/2016) pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 509, 498A, 354D read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as per the complaint averments, are that on 09.02.2016, the 2nd respondent-complainant lodged first information before the P.S.I., Hospet Town Police Station, in Crime No.42/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC, against the petitioner and another, arraying the petitioner as accused No.1. The Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 506, 509read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and registered the case in C.C. No.970/2016. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.1 has preferred this petition challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the Trial Court on the grounds as mentioned in the petition.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2-complainant, though served with the notice, has remained absent and there is no representation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of his arguments, made the submission that looking to the complaint averments, the alleged offences are stated to have been committed in the year 2011, 2012, whereas the complaint is filed in the year 2016. He also made the submission that sofar as the present petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, the offence under Section 498A and other offences are not at all made applicable. It is his contention that, in the complaint, bald and vague allegations are made by the complainant that in the year 2012, this petitioner tried to outrage her modesty and the same was brought to the notice of the institution and accordingly they advised. Learned counsel further made the submission that except this there is no other allegations made in the complaint. He made the submission that even though there is no prima facie material placed by way of allegations either in the complaint or in the chargesheet material, the police have filed the chargesheet. He also submitted that even the Trial Court has not applied its judicious mind to the materials placed on record before it and, mechanically, took cognizance even against the present petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, he made the submission that, even looking to the entire chargesheet material, there is no prima facie case made out as against the present petitioner and that the case is totally baseless and only an abuse of process of the Court. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner/accused No.1.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that looking to the allegations in the complaint and also the chargesheet material collected during the investigation by the Investigating Officer and so also the statement of witnesses, they clearly make out a prima facie case against the petitioner herein. He submitted that basing upon the said materials, the concerned Court has correctly taken cognizance of the offences by registering a criminal case and ordering issuance of process. Hence, he submitted that this is not a case for quashing the proceedings by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition and also the entire materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the memo dated 30.03.2017 containing the investigation materials.
8. It is, no doubt, true that chargesheet is laid in this case as against the present petitioner and accused No.2, but for conducting the investigation and proceeding with the matter, the foundation is the complaint lodged by a complainant and the allegations made in the complaint. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, absolutely, there are no specific allegations made against the present petitioner about committing of any offence as against respondent No.2/complainant; only bald and vague allegations have been made in the complaint as against the present petitioner that he used to telephone the complainant often and because of this attitude of the petitioner herein, she informed the same to the wife ofsaid Vijayakumar. Except this allegation in the complaint, absolutely, there is no material sofar as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned. Even perusing the chargesheet material, sofar as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, no satisfactory and cogent material are placed so as to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner/accused No.1. As I have already observed, the alleged offence was in 2011-12 and complaint was in 2016. Regarding delay, there is no explanation. Hence, looking to all these materials placed on record, there is no prima facie case as against the present petitioner, and initiation of the criminal proceedings is only an abuse of process of the Court. Accordingly, petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated as against the present petitioner/accused No.1 are hereby quashed.