The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

proceedings in C.C.No.33914/2021 for offences punishable

under Sections 341, 504, 509 and 279 of the IPC, pending

before the 8^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru City, arising out of Crime No.200/2021.

- 3 -

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 22.09.2021 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 petitioner9s 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 23.09.2021, for the offences punishable

under Sections 341, 504, 509 and 279 of the IPC. The police

after investigation files a charge sheet under Section 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 -

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

- 5 -

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 3 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:

<gÀªÀjUÉ,

¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï

¸ÀAdAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.

¬ÄAzÀ,

«£ÉÆÃzÀgÉrØ ©£ï ²ªÀ°AUÁgÉrØ

33 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À: 21, 6£Éà ªÉÄÊ£ï

3£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ªÉÆúÀ£ïPÀĪÀiÁgÀ £ÀUÀgÀ

- 6 -

AiÀıÀªÀAvÀ¥ÀÄgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-22

ªÉÆ.£ÀA.9738382155.

«µÀAiÀÄ: £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß vÀqÉzÀÄ, CªÁZÀå ±À§ÞUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ

ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV zÀÆgÀÄ.

£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝPÉÆAqÀÄ gÉøïPÉÆøïð£À°è PÀÄzÀÄgÉ

mÉæöʤ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¢£ÁA