IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Punith S/o. Rangaswamy & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State by K.R. Pete Town Police, Mandya, Represented by State Special Public Prosecutor & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 7585 of 2021
Decided On : 24-05-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 448, 504, 324, 323, 506, 34, 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Barged into house - Assaulted him with weapons - Quashment of proceedings - Petitioner is before Court calling in question proceedings registered for offences – Merely because transaction appears to be civil in nature, proceedings should not be stifled - Para 14.
Finding of the Court:
High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus - Aforesaid observation is made on premise that complainant has not placed on record power of attorney along with counter filed before High Court - However, when it is specifically stated in FIR that Munni Devi has executed power of attorney and thereafter investigating officer has conducted investigation and has recorded statement of complainant, accused and independent witnesses, thereafter whether complainant is having power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial - Transaction between petitioners and 2nd respondent cannot but be said to be purely civil in nature - Merely because issue is purely civil in nature or civil proceedings are pending between parties, is no “licence to commit assault”.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.128/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 324, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC.
2. Sans unnecessary details facts projected by the prosecution are as follows:
On 11-09-2019 at about 5.00 p.m. the 2nd respondent/complainant registers a complaint before the jurisdictional police which becomes a crime in Crime No.193 of 2019. The allegation in the complaint against the petitioners is that the petitioners have barged into the house of the complainant, assaulted him with weapons and caused injury. The complaint explains that after the said assault the complainant along with the objects used for such assault was taken to the jurisdictional police and the complaint came to be registered against the petitioners. The police, after investigation, file a charge sheet against the petitioners for the very same offences that were alleged at the time of registration of the crime. The petitioners are arrayed as accused. It is the filing of the charge sheet that drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard the learned Counsel Sri G. Arun appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1.
4. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the complainant has a transaction with the petitioners. The complainant is alleged to have received money from the petitioners for the purpose of getting one of the members of the family of the petitioners a job in any of the department of Government. On such assurance, Rs.10 lakhs was paid by the petitioners to the complainant. The petitioners repeatedly sought refund of the money. The complainant turned out to be a cheat and had lured the petitioners in parting with Rs.10 lakhs and did not secure a job as was promised. As such, the petitioners seek to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police, upon which, the complainant appears before the police and undertakes to refund the money and also hands over certain cheques. Therefore, the matter is purely civil in nature and what is alleged by the complainant of assault has never taken place. Therefore, he seeks quashment of the proceedings.
5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submission of the petitioners to contend that the alleged offences are serious and would necessarily require a trial, as the incident has taken place and the complainant is injured by the act of the petitioners. He would submit that the material objects of assault and the wound certificate would clearly depict the act of assault by the petitioners upon the complainant. He would submit that it is for the petitioners to come out clean in the trial.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would join issue and contend that the material objects are the ones that are given by the complainant. Wound Certificate is also false, as it can be secured by any complainant to register a complaint. He would submit that the complainant only to wreck vengeance for demanding refund of money has resorted to the registration of crime.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The transaction between the complainant and the petitioners are a matter of record. The reason for receipt of money from the hands of the petitioners by the complainant is what the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted. Things being thus and the transaction between the petitioners being as narrated hereinabove, when the refund did not come about, the petitioners approached the jurisdictional police. The police in the wake of conduct of a preliminary enquiry summon the complainant. The complainant comes before the jurisdictional police and undertakes to refund the amount, also issues certain cheques by addressing a communication to t
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra
State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa
Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd.
Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra
SupremeToday
The court held that distinctions between civil and criminal transactions may not bar criminal proceedings when fraud or wrongdoing is alleged, requiring an investigation into the claims.
The High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the allegations presented significant triable issues requiring a complete trial.
(1) A bonafide criminal case cannot be stifled at threshold by High Court.(2) In order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act l....
Criminal proceedings for trespass can proceed despite claims of civil dispute; factual examination is required during trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, especially in the presence of pending....
Criminal proceedings cannot proceed in civil disputes, aimed at preventing misuse of legal processes. Courts must ensure that only matters with substantial criminal allegations are pursued judiciousl....
The High Court has the authority to quash criminal proceedings when allegations are improbable and do not constitute an offense, especially when they arise from civil disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a dispute is essentially of a civil nature, criminal proceedings should not be allowed to proceed, and the power to quash criminal procee....
Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely because they have a color of being civil in nature, and the evidence produced by the accused in their defense cannot be considered at the initial stage o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.