Santosh vs State and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent - State. Perused the records. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No. 90/2014 arising out of Crime No. 74/2014 of Thalikote Police Station pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Muddebihal for the offence punishable under Sections 324 , 427 , 504 , 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that on 17.3.2014 at about 12 Noon when the complainant Ningayya entering his land bearing Survey No. 34 measuring 25 acres 12 guntas, for doing agricultural work, all the accused persons including the petitioners attempted to prevent the complainant and assaulted the complainant and also made attempts to run over the Tractor on the complainant etc., It is also alleged that the accused persons have threatened the complainant and others with dire consequences of killing them and used filthy language against them and trespassed into the land of the complainant etc.,

On the basis of the above said information, the Police have investigated the matter, recorded the statement of the witnesses and found sufficient material to file charge-sheet and after filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process against the accused. In fact, the other accused persons who have already appeared before the Trial Court were enlarged on bail as per the submission of the learned counsel petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends before the Court that there are lot of contradictions in the complaint averments and also in the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. Also, there are discrepancies with regard to the injury sustained by the complainant and others when compared with that of the wound certificates. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is a lecturer, and he was not present on the alleged date of incident and he has been falsely implicated into the crime. Therefore, he pleads for quashing of the entire proceedings and charge sheet papers.

At the time of exercising powers u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to see whether the allegations made in the FIR and the charge-sheet constitute any offence against the accused person under any of the penal provisions. If the allegations are sufficient to constitute an offence, the veracity of the allegations made have to be thrashed out during the course of trial. The Court should not venture upon to go in deep to the statements of the witnesses and also the charge-sheet papers in order to appreciate the same to find out whether the case of the prosecution is true or false and that has to be done only after the evidence is recorded or for tentative purpose, the Trial Court can consider and weigh the materials on record for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for framing of charges. The Hon''ble Apex Court in a decision reported in Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, has categorically observed that-

"The High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial if found guilty."

Therefore, when the allegations made in the FIR and the charge-sheet constitute an offence, then normally the Court should not interfere with the further criminal proceedings.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in another case between Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, has held at paragraph 27.13 that-

"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."

Therefore, when the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons, it goes without saying that mere are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for issuance of summons. In the above said circumstances, I do not find any such strong reasons to quash the entire proceedings.

I With the above said observation, the petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to make necessary application for his discharge and for personal exemption from appearance if so advised. The Trial Court is directed to consider the application if filed and dispose of the same in accordance with law.