ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

The petitioner/accused is sought to be prosecuted for offenses punishable under Sections 504, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The case for the prosecution is that accused No.

1, the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos. 15/4 and 15/5, entrusted the construction of a farmhouse to the de facto complainant. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the work could not be completed. Subsequently, the accused threatened the de facto complainant to remove the centering, which caused the pillars and walls to tilt. On April 21, 2021, the accused threatened the laborers to stop working, abused them in vulgar language, and demanded they leave the job site. When C.W.2 and C.W.4 questioned the accused about his abusive behavior towards the laborers, accused No. 1 assaulted C.W.4 with his hands. Following this, the accused threatened the de facto complainant and other witnesses with dire consequences and continued to use vulgar language. 3. The learned Magistrate accepted the chargesheet and took cognizance of the offenses under the aforementioned sections of the IPC.

4. The petitioner’s learned counsel argued that there is no substantive material indicating that C.W.4 sustained simple injuries due to the alleged assault by the petitioner/accused, which would constitute an offense under Section 323 of the IPC.

5. Furthermore, the learned counsel contended that the alleged abusive language used by the petitioner did not result in a breach of public peace or the commission of any other offenses by the witnesses, thus not constituting an offense under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. Consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, according to the petitioner’s counsel, would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

6. In contrast, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant argued that the charge sheet material, coupled with witness statements, clearly established that C.W.4 sustained simple injuries due to the assault by accused No. 1. The veracity of these allegations, the counsel argued, should be examined during the trial, and hence, the petition should be dismissed.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for the respondent-State reiterated the arguments presented by the de facto complainant’s counsel.

8. After examining the arguments presented by both parties, the following observations are noted: 1. It is undisputed that accused No. 1, the owner of the subject land, had entrusted the construction of the farmhouse to the de facto complainant and that there is a dispute regarding the completion of the farmhouse.

2. A review of the charge sheet material reveals no wound certificate or witness statements substantiating that C.W.4 sustained simple injuries as required under Section 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to constitute an offense under Section 323 of the IPC, except for the claim that accused No. 1 assaulted C.W.4 with his hands. The abusive language used by the petitioner/accused did not result in a breach of public peace or the commission of any other offenses by the de facto complainant or any other witnesses mentioned in the chargesheet. Thus, the essential elements to constitute the offenses under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are absent. Consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The dispute between the parties arose from the contract entrusted to the de facto complainant, and the FIR appears to have been lodged with malice and without probable cause.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.179/2022 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channaptna is hereby quashed.