D. Bhaktavatsala vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for setting aside the order passed by the Fast Track Court-IV, Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No. 353/2013 dated 27th August 2014 and consequently to set aside the order passed by the learned IX ACMM, Bangalore dated 15th October 2013 in C.C. No. 16993/2012 in refusing to discharge the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

The records disclose that Rajajinagar Police have submitted a charge sheet after due investigation in Crime No. 170/2011 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate i.e. IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and issued process against the accused by registering a case in C.C. No. 16993/2012. The petitioners/accused persons appeared before the Cour and got enlarged themselves on bail. Subsequently, it appears the petitioners have sought for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the 1st petitioner was not at all present on the date of the incident and the allegations made against other accused persons are not sufficient to constitute any offences even the entire materials on record are translated into evidence. The learned Magistrate after hearing in detail the prosecution and the petitioners has rejected the said plea of the accused at that stage and refused to discharge the accused persons.

The learned Magistrate has considered the statement of the witnesses i.e. PV/s 1 to 4 and came to the conclusion that they have specifically stated about the presence of the accused persons on that particular day in commission of the offences under the above said provision of law. The learned Magistrate has also considered the statements of witnesses, spot mahazar and also other materials available in the charge sheet filed by the Police under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that the entire charge sheet papers reveal that there is a prima facie material to proceed against the accused persons by framing charges for the above said offences. Therefore, their application came to be rejected.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein have approached the Fast Track Court IV, Bangalore City in'' Criminal Revision Petition No. 353/2013. The Fast Track Court-IV, Bangalore City also in detail discussing the materials on record dismissed the said revision petition confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. The Revisional Court has also observed that the materials on record discloses that there are sufficient materials and grounds to proceed against the petitioners. The Revisional Court has also considered the certificate produced by the petitioner No. 1 issued by State Intelligence, Bangalore certifying that on 27th to 29th February 2012, the 1st petitioner was on VIP Security Training Course. It is also observed by the Revisional Court that the incident was on 17/18.03.2012. The dates mentioned in the sold document and the date of the incident did not tally with each other. Therefore, the learned Fast Track Judge has come to the conclusion that if at all the petitioners were not there on the date of the incident, it is a matter of fact has to be established before the Trial Court during the course of evidence. Therefore, the Revisional Court refused to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court, consequently, dismissed the Revision Petition.

The learned Counsel also brought to my notice that the parties are fighting in the Civil Court in O.S. No. 7214/2011 and a complaint is also filed by the petitioners against the 1st respondent in Criminal Court and the same is also pending. It is submitted that in view of the pendency of the Civil case, and though the incident has not happened the respondent No. 1 herein has filed a false complaint against the petitioners. In my opinion, those materials may be available to the petitioners and they can be used as very good defence at the time of evidence before the Trial Court. Unless those documents are brought on record in accordance with law, this Court cannot quash the proceedings by relying upon those extraneous materials. Further, added to that the veracity genuineness of these documents and the factual matrix pleaded by the accused with regard to the absence on the spot at the time of the incident has to be tested by providing an opportunity to the complainant by testing the veracity of the documents and the statement made by the accused.

Under the above said circumstances, when the allegations made in the charge sheet papers are supported by other materials on record, which are according to the Trial Court and the Revisional Court are sufficient to frame charges. Such observations and finding of facts should not normally be interfered by this Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is not a fit case where this Court can quash the entire proceedings in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Learned Counsel strenuously contends that the 4th petitioner is a Law student and 3rd petitioner is a Lecturer and every time they have to attend the Trial Court in this regard. That can''t be ground to quash the proceedings but they can request the Trial Court to expedite the matter and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. If such a request is made by the accused, the Trial Court has to make all its endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A. No. 1/2014 filed for stay does not survive for consideration.