Guddappa and Nataraj vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Though this petition is posted for admission, with the consent of both the Counsels, the matter is heard on merits itself.

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mundgod in taking cognizance on final report submitted by the police and registering the case in C.C. No. 45/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (''the IPC'' for short) against the petitioners Guddappa and Nataraj.

The brief factual aspects that emanate from the record are:

The petitioner''s father Shivanagappa Katur claimed to be the owner of a non-agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 39/B situated at Chigalli village at Mundgod Taluk. In the said land, Vijay Laxmi Rice Mill was established under a partnership firm. The respondent No. 2 also claimed the ownership over the said Vijay Laxmi Rice Mill.

In this background, the parties are fighting against each other for the ownership of said Rice Mill, and a civil suit was filed by the father of the respondent No. 2 in O.S. No. 101/2012 seeking relief of permanent injunction, the said suit appears to have been disposed of.

It is also alleged between the parties that, they have also indulged in filing criminal complaints against each other. Earlier the police have filed ''B'' report in connection with Crime No. 109/2012 stating that it is a false complaint lodged against the petitioners by the father of respondent No. 2. Subsequently, the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 filed cases against each other. It is seen from the records that, Crime No. 128/2012 came to be registered on the information given by Guddappa, S/o. Shivanagappa Katur - petitioner No. 1 against the respondent No. 2 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is admitted by the learned Counsels for both the parties that, this case has been investigated by the police and the charge sheet has been submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

It is also an undisputed fact that, on 27.10.2012, the respondent No. 2 Girish, S/o. Mahadevappa Katur and another by name Sanjay, S/o. Mahadevappa Katur have also filed a FIR against the petitioners herein in Crime No. 129/2012 on the file of the Mundgod Police and a case has been registered under Sections 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is also submitted that the said case was also investigated and charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court.

Looking from the above said factual matrix, the parties have indulged in filing criminal cases against each other. Merely because earlier ''B'' report was submitted by the police in favour of the petitioners herein in an earlier case, that does not mean to say that the present complaints filed by the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 and subsequent charge sheets are false, and on that ground, further proceedings before the criminal courts cannot be quashed. This Court exercising the powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot dwell upon the factual matrix of the case in order to ascertain who is at fault. It is the domain of the trial Court after the trial to ascertain whether the charges leveled against the petitioners as well as the respondents in their respective cases are true or not. In the event of any false case being lodged against any of the parties, the aggrieved party can also sue for malicious prosecution. When such a situation is there, this Court is debarred from entering into the area of appreciation of evidence to give any finding that the complaint filed by either of the parties are false, frivolous or vexatious. Unless and until this Court tentatively come to a conclusion that the complaint or the first information report or subsequent investigation or charge sheet are filed with a mala fide intention to harass a particular person or the proceedings are vexatious, such proceedings cannot be quashed. Therefore, I find absolutely no merit in the petition. However, it is observed that the parties are at liberty to contest the criminal case and put forth their contentions before the trial Court. Under the above said circumstances, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence the following order.

Petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.