Puttamma vs Manjula

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Perused the records.

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire charge sheet and entire proceedings in C.C. No. 82/2012 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., Nagamangala and to exonerate the accused.

I have also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.

The records disclose that on 05.11.2011 the first informant - Manjula wife of Mahadeva has lodged a first information report stating that on 05.11.2011 at about 4.10 p.m. when her husband was not in the house one Kambegowda and a lady by name Puttamma, who are the petitioners herein trespassed into the house of the complainant and abused her with filthy language (the words used by the petitioners have been stated) and also the petitioner No. 2 Kambegowda dragged her and snatched the vale. In fact, the said Puttamma -petitioner No. 1 assaulted the complainant with a chopper, the complainant put her right hand across and she sustained injury to her hand. At that time they also assaulted her, kicked her, threw her on the ground. At the time of the incident, it is stated that one Mr. Nanjundaiah and Aseen Taj were also present and they in fact resolved the dispute. But in spite of that it is alleged that the petitioners have threatened her with dire consequences of killing her. On these allegations, the Police have registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 448, 324, 354, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

After due investigation, the Police have also filed charge sheet before the Court and the records shows that the Court has taken cognizance and issued summons. The accused have also appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail and presently the case is now set down for hearing before the charges against the accused. At that juncture, the present petition is filed.

The learned Counsel strenuously contended that one Nanjundaiah, Rudresh and Asif Pasha have filed a suit in O.S. No. 115/2011 against this Puttamma and others (petitioner herein). In order to strengthen the allegations made in the suit, a false complaint has been filed. Therefore, it is contended that in order to wreck vengeance a complaint is filed. Therefore, a Civil matter has been dragged on to the Criminal Court. Further, he contended that though the complaint was lodged on 05.11.2011 but the Police have conducted the mahazar on 06.02.2012 and recovered the chopper at the instance of the complainant herself and also one blue colour vale alleged to have been snatched by one of the petitioner - Kambegowda. Therefore, he contends that there is delay in conducting the mahazar and also there is a civil case pending between the parties. On these grounds, he pleaded for quashing of the proceedings.

On careful perusal of the plaint averments, this Manjula who lodged the complaint is not a party to the proceedings and her husband is an Advocate. But he is also not a party to the said suit. When the Police have submitted the charge sheet and there are two eye witnesses to the incident, whether the reliability of the statements of the witnesses as false or true the Court at this stage cannot evaluate the evidence or appreciate the materials on record in order to draw a definite inference that they are false witnesses and their statements cannot be believed. Further added to that, when the complaint averments and also the entire charge sheet if it is translated into evidence, if shows that some offence is constituted, and the said allegations have to be established before the Trial Court. Unless it is definitely shown to the Court that there is abuse of process of the Court by the complainant proceedings can''t be quashed. In order to provide the materials on record as to how the matter should be dealt with, the Apex Court in a decision reported in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Another Vs. Monica and Others, held that:

"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 Quashment - Core test that has to be applied before summoning the accused is that the facts stated against accused have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it -Appreciation, even in a summary manner, of averments made in a complaint petition or FIR is not permissible at the stage of quashment of criminal proceeding - Facts, as alleged, will have to be proved which can only be done in the course of a regular trial"

In another Ruling reported in Vijayander Kumar and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, wherein the Apex Court held that:

"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 -Quashment - Criminal as well as civil liability - A given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding -Real test is whether allegations in complaint disclose a criminal offence or not".

Therefore, the Court cannot appreciate the materials on record in order to hold that the witnesses are untrustworthy for acceptance.

Learned Counsel also cited a Ruling which is reported in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, wherein the Apex Court has held that:

"A growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged".

I have no dispute so far as the principles laid down in the said case, but at the initial stages itself it has to be undisputedly established before the Court that a purely civil matter has been dragged into the criminal case.

In this particular case though civil matter is pending but the allegations made in the complaint attract the criminal offences, whether the said offences or the incident has taken place or not cannot be judged by the Court at this stage. Otherwise, it would amounts to acquitting the accused without there being a trial.

In another decision of the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, at paragraph 27.13 the Hon''ble Supreme Court has categorically given a guidelines to the following effect:

"Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie".

When the Trial Court on looking into the materials on record found that there is a prima facie material to take cognizance and issued summons to the accused and the accused persons have appeared before the Court. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Trial Court if advised to make an application for discharge. In that event the Court has to provide opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the said application as early as possible. If the charges have already been framed by the Trial Court, then also the Trial Court has to make all its endeavour to dispose of the case on merits as early as possible.

Any observations made by this Court in this order should not in any manner persuade the Trial Court while disposing of the application for discharge or on merits, of the case.

With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.