The allegations under Sections 504 and 506 IPC require specific evidentiary elements; prosecution should not misuse criminal law for personal vendettas.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 are at the doors of this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.1517/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

3. The complainant though served long ago, remains unrepresented even today.

4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 purchase the subject properties through a registered sale deed dated 09.01.1997, and get an order of conversion and develop it into a layout and on 11.05.2011. When the khatha is sought to be transferred at the hands of the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar endorses that the khatha cannot be changed since the land has already been converted.

4.1. When things stood thus, after 23 years of sale, a family member of the vendor of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 registers a complaint on 18.11.2020, which becomes a crime in Crime No.292/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 354, 506, 504 read with 34 of the IPC.

4.2. The Police, after investigation, file a chargesheet dropping all the other offences and retaining Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. It is this that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the offences even if taken on its face value would not amount to the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The crime while being registered was glorified by registering several offences, but what remains is the offence of criminal intimidation and nothing else. Learned counsel would further submit that the family member of the vendor of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, after 23 years, is wanting to settle a score with the petitioners for the purpose of extortion. He would further submit that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have instituted a suit in O.S.No.207/2020 seeking permanent injunction against the complainant. After the institution of the suit comes the impugned complaint. Therefore, he would seek quashment of the proceedings.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the fact that the civil suit is pending in O.S.No.207/2020, wherein petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have sought for the relief of permanent injunction against respondent No.2.

7. The complainant remains unrepresented though served long ago. Learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the fact of pendency of the civil suit, but would nonetheless submit that the chargesheet is filed and therefore, the trial is permitted to be continued. Hence, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in such full-blown trial.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The facts are all a matter of record. The purchase of the petition subject properties happens on 09.01.1997, the complainant is the family member of the vendor of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who sell the properties to petitioner Nos.1 and 2, 23 years ago. The complaint emerges on 18.11.2020. The backdrop of the complaint is the institution of a suit by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.207/2020. These facts are also not in dispute. Since the entire issue is now triggered from the registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint, which reads as under:

The Police thereafter conduct investigation and file the chargesheet. The summar