The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sec. 341, 504, 509, or 279 of the IPC must be met for the charges to be sustained, and the court must prevent an abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.33914/2021 for offences punishable under Ss. 341, 504, 509 and 279 of the IPC, pending before the 8th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, arising out of Crime No.200/2021.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition as projected by the prosecution are as follows: The petitioner and his wife on 22/9/2021 were travelling on Hebbal main road to reach Yelahanka. The petitioner takes a left turn from New BEL Road driving his car and moves at 80 feet road, at which point in time, a White Audi Car collided with the petitioner's car, which was trying to enter from 80 feet road from one of the cross roads. Altercations between the petitioner and the inmates of the Audi car happens, pursuant to which, respondent No.2 who was an inmate in the Audi car owned and driven by one Smt.Asha Parveen, one of the Officers of the Karnataka Administrative Service registers a complaint before the police on 23/9/2021, for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 504, 509 and 279 of the IPC. The police after investigation files a charge sheet under Sec. 341, 504, 509 and 279 of the IPC. It is the filing of the charge sheet that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Murthy D. Naik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

4. Respondent No.2 though served, is unrepresented.

5. Sri Murthy D. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the registration of the crime is an act of highhandedness and clout of Smt.Asha Parveen, an Officer working as Assistant Commissioner for Rent Control at the relevant point in time. The entire incident that took place is because of the negligent driving of the Officer and due to which, a trivial incident is glorified by alleging falsehood only to harass the petitioner. A charge sheet is also filed by the police without even investigation of the matter in its true sense. The necessary ingredients to allege such charge against the petitioner were totally lacking and it is his contention that the police in the police station have harassed the petitioner, abused by usage of filthy language, which could be captured only on a CCTV, which was not installed in the police station.

6. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that every police station is installed with CCTV and the contention of learned senior counsel is contrary to the facts. Insofar as the allegation of shoddy investigation, the learned High Court Government Pleader would again refute the submissions to contend that it is not a case where there is no investigation. The police have filed a charge sheet on thorough investigation and the petitioner has to come out clean in the trial.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The afore-quoted link in the chain are not in dispute. A complaint is registered by respondent No.2 - complainant, who was an inmate of the Audi car, which was owned and driven by Smt.Asha Parveen, an Officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint, it is extracted for the purpose of quick reference:

A perusal at the complaint so registered by the first informant - respondent No.2 would indicate that he was an inmate in Audi car, which is owned by Smt. Asha Parveen and was being driven by her. It also narrates that some injuries were caused to him in the altercation between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. There is no iota of evidence collected by the police during investigation about any injury sustained by the complainant, an inmate or the driver of t