D.T. Virupakshappa vs C. Subash

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings in CC. No. 74/2009 on the file of JMFC, Chikkanayakanahally, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 342, 120, 114, 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. The respondent herein filed a private complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and two others, who are police officials working Tinder him alleging that on 6.6.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. he was picked up from his garden land situated in Sy.No. 76 of Ajjigudde; thereafter, brought to the office of the petitioner herein at Huliyaru, there he was detained at the instance of this petitioner and assaulted to extract some information with regard to the death of one Sannamma and further he was detained in the police station till about 10.00 p.m. on that day at the instance of this petitioner saying that he should not be set-free till he reveals the names of the persons who had murdered Sannamma. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the allegations levelled in the complaint recorded the sworn statements of the complainant and his two witnesses, namely Chandrashekaraiah N. Byrappa-PW.2 and Pramila-PW.3. Thereafter, on going through the averment made in the complaint, sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant has made out a prima facie case for the offences aforesaid against the petitioner and two others, accordingly, ordered for registration of the case and directed issuance of summons to the petitioner and two others in the case.

Petitioner being aggrieved of the order registering the case and directing summons to him is before this Court to quash the proceedings registered against him on the complaint of the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that a false complaint has been filed as counter blast in order to see that the complainant is not involved in the murder case of one Sannamma. He further submits that this petitioner was not at Huliyaru or at the place where the complainant was picked up on the alleged date i.e. on 6.6.2006 as he had been to Tumkur to tender evidence in S.C. No. 195/2005. Therefore, he submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner that he had got the complainant picked up from his garden land, assaulted in the police station, detained him in police custody, cannot be believed. Therefore, he submitted that the allegations being fictitious the proceedings be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant supporting the impugned order contended that this is not the stage to appreciate the case of the petitioner. As the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses prima facie make out a case, there is no merit in the petition, accordingly, it be dismissed. A perusal of the averments in the complaint, sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses go to show that the complainant was picked up from his garden land at about 10.00 a.m. on 6/6/2006 in the morning. Further averment reveals that this petitioner came to the police station later in the evening and detained him till 10.00 p.m. and also directed he should not be let-out till he reveals or confesses that he is involved in the murder of one Sannamma. These allegations in the complaint are further corroborated in the sworn statement of the complainant which is further fortified from the sworn statement of his two witnesses namely, PWs.2 and 3. The Court at this stage is required to consider only the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses to come to a conclusion whether a prima facie is made out for registering the case and issuing summons. It is not the stage for the Court to consider the defence of the accused as the same is well settled by the Apex Court as long as in the year 1976 in the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, In the present case, the allegations in the complaint, sworn statement of the complainant and his two witnesses clearly make out the offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused. If according to the petitioner, it is a false and fictitious complaint, it is for him to bring those materials when the said case is set down for hearing before charge before the learned Magistrate. It is too premature at this stage to consider the case of the petitioner while looking into the material whether the prima facie case is made out or not as alleged by the complainant. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition, accordingly, it is dismissed.