AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto
Heard Sri. Shobhith N. Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. M.G. Sateesh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri. Rajesh Rai. K., learned HCGP appearing for State/Respondent No. 2. This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No. 13208/2010 (PCR No. 13340/2009) on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore which is registered on the basis of the private complaint PCR No. 13340/2009 filed by the complainant/respondent No. 1 for the offences u/s 420, 506, 504 of IPC.
When the matter was referred for investigation to the police, the police have filed the charge sheet for the offences u/s 504 and 506 of IPC.
Sri. Shobhith N. Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, it is mentioned in para 10 of the complaint as follows:
The complainant submits that, on 18.07.2009, at around 5.30 p.m., the Accused persons called upon the complainant that they wanted to discuss regarding the due amount and also told that they will the settled the matter amicable. Then the complainant called all the accused persons to his chamber in his residence on the same day around 6.30 p.m., then around 5 to 6 persons came to the house of the complainant and all of them started to discuss the matter. There the Accused persons insulted the complainant by provoking breach of peace and threatened the complainant with dire consequence stating that they intends to cheat the Complainant and also abused the complainant in filthy language and suddenly quarreled with the complainant. The accused persons clearly stated that, they will not pay a single N.P. and the accused persons intends to cheat the complainant and thus the accused have committed an offence punishable u/s 420, 504, 506-B of Indian Penal Code.
He therefore submits that, the ingredients of the offences u/s 504 and 506 of IPC are not at all attracted in this case.
I have gone through the averments made in para 10 of the complaint and also entire complaint filed by respondent No. 1. All that the complainant states in para-10 of the complaint is that, accused intends to cheat the complainant, whereas it does not at all mention the names of the accused who have already cheated the complainant. Hence, the police have rightly referred to file the charge sheet for the offence u/s 420 of IPC.
The other two offences alleged are summons case. But the averments in para-10 of the complaint does not attract the provisions of either Section 504 of IPC or Section 506 of IPC, since the said conversation between the accused and complainant is in the nature of the usual business transactions. Further the actual words alleged to have been uttered by accused are not reproduced in the complaint. Under such circumstances, the possibility of conviction is very remote. Therefore, the continuance of the proceedings is sheer abuse of process Court of law and it will only waste the valuable time of the Court. In that view of the matter, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in CC NO. 13208/2010 (PCR No. 13340/2009) on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore is hereby quashed.