Mansoor Ali vs The State and Others

Budihal R.B., J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused in Crime No. 54/2015 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi, registered against the present petitioner for the offences as mentioned in the said FIR.

The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint are that one Abdulgam, son of Ladlesab Goundi, filed a complaint on 25.4.2015 alleging that he is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint along with his sons, daughters-in-law and grandchildren, that he is KSRTC''s retired traffic controller and presently he is running a kirana shop at his house and they are doing the said business. Nearby the house of the complainant, one Mansoor Ali, the present petitioner in this case who is a teacher is residing along with his wife. On 19.04.2015 during night, the complainant was sitting in the hall of his house and his two sons viz., Mohammed Yasin and Mohammed Yunus were doing the business in the shop and, at about 9.30 p.m., the complainant heard some sound from the shop and the complainant stood up, went towards the shop, and saw the petitioner herein talking with his children in a high voice and abusing them in filthy language and also asking his children as to why they were making accusations against the petitioner and also the persons who are residing on rental basis and stating so, petitioner abused them in unparliamentary words and thereafter the incident started. The petitioner herein assaulted one of the sons of the complainant and when the other son came to the rescue, petitioner assaulted him also on the right cheek. On seeing the same, when the complainant came to the rescue, the petitioner herein dragged the complainant by holding his hands and he bit his right hand and also scratched with his nails and in the said process, when the petitioner herein was going backwards, the petitioner came in contact with the bike of a customer, fell down on the bike and sustained injuries and thereafter petitioner went away from the said place. Then all the three went to the KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and there the complainant and his son Mohammed Yasm took treatment and his another son Mohammed Yunus did not take any treatment in the said hospital. There afterwards, they discussed the matter in the Jamaat and then he filed the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, the case has been registered in Vidyanagar P.S. Crime No. 54/2015 against the present petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and the FIR was issued in the case. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the present petitioner is before this Court.

Heard the arguments of the petitioner, who is party-in-person in this case, the learned Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-complamant.

The petitioner, who is party-in-person, during the course of his arguments, made the submission that on 19.04.2015 when the petitioner after offering the prayer in the mosque came out at about 8.15 p.m., the accused persons in Cr. No. 53/2015 picked up quarrel with him and they assaulted him and caused injuries more particularly to the lips and caused damage to his teeth and that they also assaulted him all over the body and, in this connection, he has produced the photographs. He further made the submission that when the complaint was lodged against the accused person in Cr. No. 53/2015, police did not entertain the complaint of the petitioner herein and therefore, the wife of the present petitioner herein made a petition to the higher officers of the police inspector making the allegation that they were not ready to receive the complaint, then as per the direction of the higher authorities, ultimately, the Vidyanagar Police registered the first information in Cr. No. 53/2015 against the accused persons mentioned in the said crime number. Petitioner further made the submission that when he lodged a complaint and the FIR was registered against the accused persons in Cr. No. 53/2015, on the very next day i.e. on 25.04.2015, a revenge FIR was registered against him on the complaint of the complainant in Cr. No. 54/2015. Hence, he made the submission that the complaint filed by the complainant in Cr. No. 54/2015 is nothing but a counter blast for the complaint already filed by him. It is also his submission that from 19.04.2015 till 25.04.2015 the complainant waited and the very words of the complainant goes to show that he consulted the jamaat members and then filed the complaint and therefore, it is an after-thought and deliberate complaint only with an intention to bring pressure on the petitioner herein to withdraw the complaint lodged in Cr. No. 53/2015. In this connection, petitioner also draw the attention of the Court to Annexures-D, E, F, H and L. So also, he drew the attention of this Court to ground No. 8 of the petition. Therefore, he made the submission that there is no prima facie case made out by the complainant in Cr. No. 54/2015. Hence, he sought for quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 - complainant, during the course of his arguments, submitted that though the complaint is filed on 25.04.2015, only on that ground the complaint cannot be quashed at this stage because the complainant has to explain about the delay during the course of trial and it is for the trial Court to accept or not to accept the explanation of the complainant during the course of the trial. He also made the submission that looking to the complaint averments, they clearly go to show that when the complainant was sitting in his house and when his children were in the shop doing the business, the petitioner herein came to their house and firstly he started talking in a loud voice with his children and after hearing the same, when he came and saw he was shouting and talking in a raised voice at his children. Learned counsel also made the submission that thereafter the incident takes place the present petitioner assaulted one of the sons of the complainant and when the second son went to the rescue he was also assaulted on his right cheek and looking to the same when the complainant came to rescue, the present petitioner held his hand dragged him and caused injury. Learned counsel further made the submission that complaint averments clearly go to show that the complainant and one of his son took treatment in the KIMS hospital, Hubballi for the injuries sustained by them. Sofar as the injury sustained by the present petitioner is concerned, learned counsel submitted that there is an explanation in the complaint itself as to why and how the present petitioner sustained injuries. Hence, he submitted that looking to the complaint averments a prima facie case is made out and it is not a case for quashing the FIR. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition.

Learned Government Pleader representing respondent No. 1-State during the course of his arguments, submitted that though it is claimed by the parties that there is a case and counter-case, in reality it is not a case and counter-case but they are two independent cases. He made the submission that so far as the case in Crime No. 53/2015 is concerned, the incident is said to have taken place when the complainant therein offered prayer in the mosque and came out of the mosque, but whereas in the case in Crime No. 54/2015, it is stated to have taken place when the complainant therein was sitting in the house and the petitioner came to the house and picked up quarrel. He also made the submission that even looking to the time of the incident mentioned in both the FIRs they are not one and the same. Hence, the learned Government Pleader made the submission that when incidents that have taken place are separate incidents as per the FIR registered in both the cases, it is for the parties to explain during the course of the trial and it is not a case for quashing the proceedings at this stage. Hence, he submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same be rejected.

I have perused the grounds urged in the petition filed by the petitioner herein. So also, I have perused the complaint which he has filed against the complainant and others in Crime No. 53/2015. I have also perused the photographs that the present petitioner herein has produced to show the injuries said to have been sustained by him.

Firstly, before going to the merits of the case, let me refer to the FIRs in both the cases. The FIR which was registered in Crime No. 53/2015, the date of the incident is mentioned as 19.04.2015 and the time of the incident is mentioned as 20.50 to 20.51, whereas the place of offence is mentioned at Column No. 4 of the FIR, as Taj Nagar, Masuti Left side, Hubli Unkal Tajnagar, Hubballi, and perusing the FIR in Crime No. 54/2015 the date of the incident is the same i.e., 19.04.2015 but the time of the incident is mentioned as from 21.30 to 21.31 hours, the place of the offence is mentioned as Unkal Tajnagar, in front of complainant''s kirana stores. Looking to these aspects in both the FIRs, prima facie they go to show that they are not one and the same incident, that they have not taken place simultaneously between two groups at the same time and the material prima facie go to show that they are two independent incidents taken place at two different places, time. It is no doubt true that the complaint lodged by the present petitioner against the accused in Crime No. 53/2015 is concerned the matter was investigated by the police and now police have filed the charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 as mentioned in the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 326, 109, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC. So far as the complaint in Crime No. 54/2015 which proceedings the present petitioner has challenged and is seeking to quash, the matter is still under investigation. Apart from that looking to the complaint averments, it is stated that the present petitioner herein picked up quarrel with the sons of the complainant, he slapped them on their cheeks and when the complainant came to the rescue he held the hand of the complainant, dragged the complainant and thereby caused injuries and also bit complainant''s right hand and scratched him with his nails and caused injuries. It is also mentioned in the complaint that they got treatment for the injuries in the KIMS hospital. When all these things are mentioned and when these things are put together and appreciated, at this stage, it cannot be said that the FIR is without any basis and the FIR is just an abuse of process of the Court. It is no doubt true as contended by the petitioner herein that there is a delay from 19.04.2015 to 25.04.2015, but for the said delay there is also an explanation offered by the complainant, but whether to accept such explanation or not to accept is for the trial Court after the final report is filed and the matter is sent up for trial. Considering these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a case for quashing of the proceedings and when admittedly, there are complaints against each other. Hence, the petitioner fails to make out a case to quash the proceedings invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.