Vikram Manusuk Bhai Kothari vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard.

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1325/2013 registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 385, 506(ii) r/w. Sec. 34 of I.P.C.

A person by name Gururaj Ainapur, 73, R.C. Nagar, Belgaum lodges a first information report before the Udyanbag Police Station, Belgaum stating that on 30th May 2011 at about 5 O''clock two persons by name Sushil Kumar Bajpai and Awadesh Kumar Mishra came to the office of the complainant stating that they were sent by the petitioner Shri. Vikram Kothari of Rotomac Global Private Limited, Kanpur by saying so they have in fact asked the complainant as to why he has written letter addressed to Sri. Vikram Kothari on 10th and 20th May 2011. Thereafter, they threatened the complainant with dire consequences that he should not take any action against Vikram Kothari in respect of CBI and Cars. They also threatened that they will file more cases at Kanpur. It is also alleged that they put a gun to the head of the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. On these allegations, the Police have registered a case in Crime No. 74/2011, investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet before the Court.

On perusal of the entire charge sheet papers, the learned JMFC-IV, Belgaum took cognizance of the offence and ordered to issue summons to the accused. The charge sheet papers also disclose that there are three eye witnesses to the incident. Though there is no direct materials available against the petitioner to show his participation, but the materials available on record particularly FIR, the allegations against the petitioner is that he abated the petitioner by sending two other accused persons to the office of the complainant, whether the petitioner has abated the offence or not has to be thrashed out by appreciating the materials on record. But this Court while exercising the powers u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. cannot appreciate the materials on record and go through the contents of the charge sheet papers. It is the domain of the Trial Court to consider whether the statement of the witnesses and the materials available in the charge sheet are sufficient to proceed against the accused or not. If the offence is broadly made out on reading of the complaint averments and the charge sheet then normally, the Court should not interfere with the cognizance taken by the Magistrate. It is worth to note here a decision of the Apex Court reported in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, the Apex Court 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 and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

Therefore, this Court cannot look into the contents of the charge sheet papers and appreciate the materials on record.

Under the above said circumstances, I don''t find any strong reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance. No other strong materials are available to quash the proceedings. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move the Trial Court for his discharge by filing appropriate application. In that event, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the application in accordance with law.

With these observations, the petition is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A. No. 1/2014 does not survive for consideration. Send a copy of this order to Trial Court.