Shri Bhojappa vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor.

A lady by name Smt. Rajshri Mahadev Kuganavar-respondent No. 2 herein has lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 504, 506, 109 R/W. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Police have registered a case in Crime No. 32/2014 and they are investigating the matter. At this stage, the present petition is filed on the ground that, even the entire allegations are taken into consideration as mentioned in the First Information Report, only one sentence is spoken to in the First Information Report insofar as this petitioner is concerned, that he has instigated the husband of the 2nd respondent.

Except that one sentence, as I have meticulously perused the contents of the First Information Report, no other allegations are there against this petitioner. There is nothing on record in the First Information Report to show that, what exactly is the instigation made or the offence abated by this petitioner, and whether on the basis of such instigation, the husband has given any ill-treatment or harassment is not specifically mentioned. Even the said allegations is translated into evidence, in my opinion, that is totally insufficient to draw an inference that this petitioner has also participated in ill-treating and harassing the complainant or abated the offence.

In this regard, it is worthy to mention a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, , wherein the Apex Court has held that "mere casual reference of the names of the accused in the FIR is not sufficient to take cognizance and complaint against the appellant is liable to be quashed."

In my opinion, the above said ruling is aptly applicable to the present case. In the present case also, it is evident, a casual reference has been made pertaining to the name of this petitioner. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, also, the Hon''ble Apex Court has clearly laid down the guidelines that,

where allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, in these circumstances, the High Court can quash the proceedings.

In view of the above said factual matrix and also the guidelines given by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the above said cases, I am of the opinion, the petitioner has made a good case for quashing of the proceedings, particularly against him. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The investigation and all proceedings in Crime No. 32/2014 on the file of Nesaragi Police is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner.