Sultanappa vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Aravind Kumar, J.—1. Heard Sri. Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is served and unrepresented.

Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned counsel appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

Petitioner is accused No. 2 in Spl. Case SC/ST No. 68/14 is seeking for quashing of FIR and charge sheet registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, in Crime No. 582/2013 now registered as Spl. Case SC/ST No. 68/2014 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.

It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioner that filing of complaint and charge sheet against the petitioner is wholly illegal and as per contents of FIR, no allegation of atrocity has been made against the petitioner and as such FIR and charge sheet are liable to be quashed. He would further elaborate his submission by contending that accused Nos. 2 to 5 in FIR have been made as CWs. 6 to 8 and 10 and as per the contents of complaint, allegations were against these persons and their names have since been deleted from the charge sheet and as such FIR and charge sheet registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. It is also contended that Trial Court itself has observed that name of father of petitioner is Sri. Kashirae but as per FIR and charge sheet, name of father of petitioner has been mentioned as Sri. Malkappa. Therefore, identity of the petitioner itself is doubtful as observed by the Trial Court and on this ground also FIR and charge sheet are liable to be quashed.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has prayed for dismissal of the petition on the ground at this stage, plea of accused cannot be entertained and it is a matter for trial. Even otherwise, he would submit that petitioner would be entitled to seek for discharge before the jurisdictional Court if he is otherwise entitled to.

This Court and Hon''ble Apex Court have repeatedly held that exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be used sparingly and carefully in order to prevent abuse of process of law. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings when it is prima facie established by petitioner that there is abuse of process of law and prosecution if proceeded against the petitioner, it would result in perpetrating such abuse. For this preposition, judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. A.P. and Others reported in , AIR 2008 SCW 6901 can be looked up. It is no doubt true that Apex Court has laid down law with regard to use of inherent power which has to be used sparingly by this Court to quash the proceedings. The material produced on behalf of accused or at the instance of accused or the complainant will have to examined to find out as to whether there is sufficient material enough to hold that there is abuse of process of law and it would depend on facts and circumstances obtained in each case. Prosecution will have to prove the charge, if the accused does not plead guilty of the charge. It is only in exceptional circumstances proceedings can be quashed to secure ends of justice.

Keeping these principles in mind and when the facts on hand are examined, it would indicate that complaint came to be lodged on 26.12.2013 alleging that at about 10.30 a.m., at plot No. 63 in Sy. No. 90 construction work was being carried on by the complainant and at that point of time accused Nos. 1 to 6 along with petitioner (accused No. 2) asserted that said plot belongs to them and abused the complainant in vulgar language and threatened with the life of the complainant. Hence, she has lodged a compliant before jurisdictional police to take action against accused persons and after investigation having been conducted charge sheet came to be filed against petitioner and two others. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 who were arraigned in FIR have been cited as prosecution witnesses i.e., CWs. 6 to 8 and 10. As to whether the prosecution is able to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner and two others, is an issue which will have to be examined by the jurisdictional Court after evidence being recorded. Merely there is erroneous description of name of the father of petitioner would not be a ground for proceedings being quashed. It is needless to state that petitioner would at liberty to seek for discharge if so advised. However, no opinion is expressed in this regard. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of considered view that case on hand does not fall under exceptional circumstances for exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, petition is hereby dismissed.

In view of rejection of the petition, I.A. No. 1/2015 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2015 is hereby dismissed.