Venkatesh and Others vs State and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Criminal Petition No. 15805/2012 is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 572/2011 on the file of the JMFC, Shahapur, against the accused/petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC which was arising out of Crime No. 156/2010.

Criminal Petition No. 15806/2012 is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 229/2011 pending on the file of the JMFC, Shahapur, against the accused/petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC, arising out of Crime No. 158/2010.

As both the matters are similar in nature, both the cases are taken up together and disposed off by a common order.

In Crl. Petition No. 15805/2012 one Umesh S/o. Shankrappa Anegundi, lodged a complaint on 2.7.2010 at 3.00 p.m., on the basis of which, the Police have registered Crime No. 156/2010 for the aforesaid offences on the allegations that he was a tenant under a lady by name Shakunthala wife of Prabhakar and running General Stores and Bakery. It is alleged that on 1.7.2010 in the evening hours, suddenly brother-in-law of the owner Shakunthala, Dr. Venkatesh, Advocate Vasu and other 8 to 10 persons entered his shop stating that Court has passed an eviction order and threw away the items in the bakery worth more than Rs. 1 lakh. Later, Shakunthala and her father also came and they threatened the complainant with dire consequences of killing him. On these allegations, the Police have investigated the case and submitted charge sheet.

So far as Criminal Petition No. 15806/2012 is concerned, a lady by name Shakunthala lodged a complaint stating that on the same day i.e., on 1.7.2010 at about 3.00 p.m., after hearing that Dr. Venkatesh and other persons have thrown away the Bakery items in the shop belonging to Umesh, they went there and she asked her Mother-in-law and brother-in-law as to why they have done so, because she has given it for rent to Sri Umesh. On hearing her, the accused persons Rajalakshmi and Venkatesh Shirawal have abused her in filthy language and caught hold her hair and Dr. Venkatesh Shirawal kicked her with legs. At that time, father of Shakunthala by name Yallappa came there and rescued her. Accused-Rajalakshmi assaulted the complainant on her cheek and the said Venkatesh also assaulted her. At that time, Ambanna Naykodi and Bheemaraya Naykodi were also present and they rescued her. On the basis of allegations made in the two complaints, the police have registered two cases as stated above, investigated the case and filed charge sheets.

The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases strenuously contends that as the offences have been committed on the same date and time, one incident has made into two complaints and two charge sheets have been filed and the same is illegal. He relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Ningappa Parasappa Pujari and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka--> , wherein this Court has observed that:

"Registering several crime for the same incident is not permissible and it amounts to misusing the power and authority vested in the police, that only show that the police have done it deliberately to implicate the accused persons in as many cases as possible." 7. In my opinion, the above said ruling is not applicable to the present set of facts and circumstances. Though the learned counsel has strenuously contended that both the incidents have occurred at the same time, but meticulous and careful perusal of the charge sheet in both the cases clearly disclose that one incident has happened between 1.00 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. and another incident has happened after 3.00 p.m. It is seen from the records pertaining to the complaint lodged by Umesh, though the said Umesh has not specifically stated the time of the incident in the complaint but in his subsequent statement recorded on 02.07.2010 he has categorically stated that on that particular date at 1.00 p.m., Venkatesh and Vasu came to his shop and committed such offences. Shakunthala in her statement stated that she came to know that at 1.30 p.m., the said incident has happened and another witness Yallappa also said that he came to know such incident happened at 1.30 p.m. So far as the second case is concerned, it is there in the complaint filed by Shakunthala that they went to spot at 3.00 p.m. and they saw articles were thrown out from the shop and then only she asked accused persons in the said case i.e., Venkatesh and Rajalakshmi and in that context, those two persons kicked her, pulled her hair etc. Therefore, the above said incidents are of different times and between different persons. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that both the incidents have happened at the same time.

The learned counsel strenuously contends even analyzing the entire material on record, it will not disclose any offences alleged. Moreover, said Shakunthala and her father have grievances against her husband as well as her mother-in-law and husband''s brother. It is contended that there was some maintenance petition filed by her and in that context, there was some dispute between the parties. Therefore, even though such incidents had not happened, in order to wreck vengeance, the above said two complaints have been filed by Umesh and Shakunthala against accused persons.

Looking to the above said submissions, at this stage, this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. need not go into the truth or falsity of the allegations made in the complaint. But on overall reading of the entire materials and statement of the witnesses, if the Court is of the opinion that some of the offences alleged have been broadly made out, then continuance of prosecution should not be scuttled. Even though the learned counsel contended that some of the offences are not constituted, but at this stage, the Court cannot go in detail with regard to that, because at the time of framing of charges, the Court has to go through the statement of witnesses and charge sheet meticulously and find out which are the offences on which the Court can frame charges against accused persons, at that particular point of time, accused persons may raise such defence that the said offences are not attracted. But, at this stage, the Court has to see whether any one of the offences alleged by the police has been constituted in order to call upon the accused persons to appear before the Court to answer the allegations.

As I have already culled out the allegations made in the complaint, in the complaint lodged by Umesh, it is categorically stated that on that particular date and time on 01.07.2010, the accused persons i.e., Venkatesh and Vasu have entered into his shop and abused him in filthy language and threw away all the materials from the shop and threatened him with dire consequences and caused loss to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. When such specific allegations are made and the same is supported by witnesses i.e., Yallappa and other witnesses, in my opinion, their evidence has to be tested by means of cross-examination and if there are any contradictions or omissions which could go to the route of the prosecution, that has to be considered by the Court before framing of charge.

So far as the second complaint is concerned, as I have already narrated, there are specific allegations that the accused persons have abused the complainant-Shakunthala in filthy language (filthy words have also stated in the complaint) and specifically accused person-Venkatesh kicked her and also mother-in-law -Rajalakshmi pulled her hair and assaulted on the cheek of the said lady and the said Venkatesh also assaulted her. This was seen by eyewitnesses Ambanna Naykod and Bheemaraya Naykod who have also reiterated the averments of the complaint. There are allegations of assault, pulling of hair of the lady and tried to squeeze the neck of the said lady etc. When such allegations are there which constitute an offence, at this stage, the Court cannot quash the proceedings.

In this regard it is wroth to note here a decision of the Apex Court reported in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, , the Apex Court at paragraph 27.13 has held 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, reliability and acceptability of the materials on record. But it is only opinion formed prima facie." 13. In order to quash the proceedings, virtually this Court has to come to the conclusion that even if the entire materials on record is translated into evidence, at this stage, no offence is made out and virtually, it amounts to acquittal of the accused without there being any trial. If such conclusion has to be reached, the materials available on record should be so clinching and unequivocal in order to draw definite inference that no such incidents have been happened and the accused persons have been falsely implicated. When such materials are not there, it is not safe to quash such proceedings.

Though this Court is dismissing the above petitions, it does not mean to say that accused persons have no remedy at all. They are at liberty to approach the Trial Court for discharge by making necessary applications. In the event of petitioners filing any such applications for their discharge, the Trial Court has to dispose of the said petitions purely on the basis of such applications without being persuaded by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. In view of the above said observations, petitions are liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.