Sri. K.P. Vasanthkumar Gowda vs State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

It is the case of the Petitioner that the complainant one K.K. Ramacharidra has filed a false complaint against the Petitioner alleging that at about 12.15 P.M. when he went to meet his advocate Shri. Krishna Murthy, the Petitioner had taken photographs and threatened the complainant and further that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal case in Crime No. 193/10 filed by the Respondent-police for an offence punishable u/s 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Petitioner contends that the complainant herein was interfering with his possession of the land belonging to him in respect of which he had also filed a suit for injunction in a civil suit in O.S. No. 78/08, which was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2009 against which an appeal was filed and the same is pending. The application seeking stay of the judgment and decree was however rejected. Under the circumstances, the complainant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 12/10 through his mother in respect of the very property, which was the subject-matter of the earlier suit and the Court was pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction. On the strength of the said order, the Petitioner''s possession was sought to be interfered with. The Petitioner thereafter moved the Court seeking to vacate the order of temporary injunction, which was accordingly modified. It is these civil litigation that forms the backdrop of the Respondent seeking to foist a false cases against the Petitioner and the police have without investigating and even without finding any prima-facie case against the Petitioner have initiated criminal proceedings and therefore, the present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings.

4, The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would argue at length to substantiate his contention that cases are filed by the Respondent, one after the other only, with an object of wreaking vengeance against the Petitioner in view "of the Petitioner having been successful in his attempts in seeking possession of the immovable property, which is the subject-matter of civil suits.

However, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader the present case initiated against the Petitioner is a warrant case triable by the Magistrate and in terms of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it u/s 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charges against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

When the law provides the remedy of such discharge on the contentions put forth, the present petition does not warrant interference by this Court under the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 in the light of the settled principle as enunciated in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , which has been reiterated in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court.

Accordingly, in view of the remedy that is available to the Petitioner under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking the provisions of Section 482 is not tenable. Hence, the petition is rejected.