Abdul Razak vs State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the Crime No. 184/2014 registered by the first respondent Police and consequently to quash the complaint dated 29.7.2014 lodged by the second respondent herein.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent - State. Perused the records.

It is seen that on 29.7.2014 at 19.00 hours, the second respondent herein lodges FIR making certain allegations. The relevant portion of the allegations are that-

On 28.7.2014, the complainant along with her mother and brother had been to the house of the second respondent at about 7.00 p.m., and demanded A1 and A3 to return her SSLC Marks Card and other documents. In that context, A3, who was present in the house, immediately came out and started abusing the complainant and her mother in a filthy language. It is further stated that A1 and A2 have pushed the complainant and her mother and also assaulted them with hands. A2 also pulled her saree and dragged her to the back yard and pushed her and also put his hand on her chest etc., and the accused persons have threatened the complainant and his mother and brother with dire consequences of killing them and etc., The Police registered a case under Section 323, 503 and 506 of IPC and it appears the investigation is going on.

Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that A3 was residing in Soudi Arabia, but on 28.7.2014 he was at the place, where the incident has taken place. According to A3, respondent No. 2 and others had been to the house of A3 and in fact, they caused inconvenience and they have committed the offences by abusing the wife of A3 in filthy language and also threatened A3 and others with dire consequences of killing them and also they have damaged the window glasses. In that context, the Police have also registered a case in. Crime No. 185/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 427, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC.

Looking to the above said factual aspects, both of them have admitted that the incident said to have taken place on the relevant date. The respondent No. 2, her brother and mother have made allegations against the petitioners herein. But, on the other hand, the petitioners have made allegations against respondent No. 2, her brother and mother. At this stage, the Court is not in a position to ascertain as to what is the truth or falsity in the complaints made by the parties against each another. Therefore, in my opinion, this has to be thrashed out during the course of investigation. Either of the cases may be true or false, the Police after investigation can only come to the conclusion that which complaint is true or false, and then only submit appropriate report before the Court. The court at the time of exercising power u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. will look into the matter as to whether the allegations made in the complaint or in the FIR constitute any offences under any of the provisions of the penal law for the time being in force. If that is established, the court cannot scuttle the legitimate investigation by the Police. In this Context, it is worth to note here a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, between Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another, wherein it has categorically held at para 27.13 in the following manner:

"Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie."

When prima facie materials are shown constituting certain offences, the truth or falsity has to be ascertained by the Police during the course of investigation. Therefore, in my opinion, now it is a too premature stage to quash the proceedings and scuttle the investigation. In the above said circumstances, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.