a. I I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18Th1 DAY OF APRIL, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.P. NO.8494/2010 BETWEEN: MR.LOKESH VENKAPPA GUNAGA, 5/0 LATE VENKAPPA GUNAGA, 0CC: BANK MANAGER, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.103, SAYEE CONFORTS, 3RD CROSS, 3 BLOCK, TYAGARAJANAGARA, BANGALORE-28. 2. MR.CHANDRAKANT VENKAPPA GUNAGA, S/O LATE VENKAPPA GUNAGA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED K.D.C.C. BANK EMPLOYEE, R/0 NEAR PANCHAVATI HOTEL, YELLAPUR ROAD, SIRSI, U.K.DIST. 3. MR.GAJANAN SEETARAM GUNAGA, S/0 LATE SEETARAM GUNAGA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/0 GUNAGAR KUPPA, HALKAR, KUMTA TALUK, U.K. DIST. 4. MR.RAMAKRISHNA MAHABALESHWARA BRAT, S/O MAHABALESHWARA R.BHAT, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT # 39 1/42, LAXMI COMPLEX, 19TH MAIN, 1 BWCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-5600 10. 5. MR.KAMALAKAR PLTTU GUNAGA. S/O LATE PUTTU GUNAGA. AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS BUSINESS HALKAR. KUMATATALUK. U.K.DIST. U. MR.RAMAkRISHNA GANAPATI GUNAGA. b U LAJE GANAPAJI( 1 LNAGA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. R/O COLLEGE ROAD. KUMTA. U.K.DIT. 7. MR.SHANTARAM BEERAPPA GUNAGA, S/O LATE BEERAPPA GUNAGA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. RETD. EMPLOYEE. R/O NEAR MANAKI GROUND. KUMTA TOWN & TQ. U.K. DIST. 8. MR.KRISHNA VITTAL GUNAGA, 5/0 LATE VVVI’AL GUNAGA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BUSINESS. R/O GUNAGAR KUPPA, HALKAR, KUMTA TALUK, U.K. DIST. 9. MR.GOVIND VITTAL GUNAGA. S/O LATE VITTAL (iUNAGA. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/O GANESHNAGAR. KUMTA TQ. U.K.DIST. PETITIONERS (BY SRI.DHARMAPAL, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OP KARNATAKA. BY KUMATA POLICE, KUMTA TOWN &. TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DIST, REP.BY ADD L.SPP. CIRCUIT BENCH. DHARWAD. 2. MR.ANANTRAM B.R.. PATH ER’S NAME NOT KNOWN. AGED 50 YEARS, BUSINESS, 3 RIO GUNAGAR KUPPA, HALAKAR, KUMTA TALUK, U.K. DIST. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANAND K. NAVALGIMATH, KCGP FOR RI, SRI.NAGAPPA TUKKAI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETIT1ON IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KARWAR DATED 28.09.20 10 AND TO SET ASIDE THE P.C.R.NO.3/2010 AND THE FIR IN CRIME NO.246/2010 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE KUMTA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 447, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(X OF S.C. & S.T. (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition .is heard finally on merits with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are before this court seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.246/2010 which was registered pursuant to the private complaint lodged by the second respondent herein before the trial court alleging the commission of the offcnces punishable under Sections 143, 447, 504 r/w 149 of the IPC and Section 4 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. 3. The private complaint lodged by the second respondent hereinunder Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. pursuant to the incident said to have occurred on 22.08.20 10, when the accused-petitioners went to the house of the complainant and abused and threatened him in the name of his caste and the reason for the incident is said to be the complainant having been a tenant of the first petitioner herein and there was a dispute regarding vacating the premises by the second respondent. Therefore, a private complaint has been lodged alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 504 nw 149 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the date of the incident, submits that the complainant is in the habit of filing frivolous complaints against several persons and the present complaint is one of such nature. To substantiate this, the learned counsel referred to the letter written b the second respondent to Kumta police on 23.08.2010 i.e.. one da3 after the alleged incident, to the effect that the petitioners came to the house of the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences and demanded the complainant to vacate the premises and therefore, the complainant sought protection from the police. Again the complainant wrote one more letter on the very same day i.e., on 23.08.20 10, to thc. Kumta police, wherein he made further allegations of abuse in the name of his caste. Thereafter, the second respondent herein gave letter dated 30.08.20 10 to the verb same Kumi.a police, wherein it is stated that, he and his owner i.e.. first petitioner, had resolved the issue amicably and the second respondent was given time till March 2011 to vacate the premises and further the complaint given b3 the second account of pressure and sought for putting a stop to the entire proceedings. C) 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the endorsement given by the Kumta police on the very same day i.e., 30.08.2010, to the second respondent, wherein the police took note of the amicable settlement between the parties and as per the request of the second respondent, police closed the matter. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the entire complaint was closed at the request of the second respondent himself and thereafter also r,kt mass petition was filed by several persons of the village on 27.09.2010 against the second respondent and once again the second respondent filed private complaint in respect of the very same incident said to have occurred on 22.08.20 10, which the complainant himself has sought for withdrawal of the entire complaint and the matter has been closed. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel also referred to the statements of two persons of the village, who have stated that the first petitioner is a respectable person and has not committed the alleged offences uid the complaint given b the second respondent is a frivolous one. In the light of tlu aforesaid events and the conduct on the part of the second respondent. the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court could not have referred the private complaint to the investigation to the police and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated in Crime No. 246/2010 be quashed in the interest ofjustice. 7. On the other hand. Sri.Nagappa Tukkai. learned counsel for the second respondent, submits that. all the documents referred to b the petitioners’ counsel can be considered by the police and if they do not find any case against the petitioners. the police may submit appropriate report and therefore. at this stage. when the FIR is registered based on the private complaint and investigation is in progress. this court. therefore. need not interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Tn respect ol the additional documents filed bi the petitioners, learned k K counsel for the second respondent also filed an affidavit wherein the stand taken by the petitioners are denied by the second respondent and it is the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that, all the documents referred to by the petitioners’ counsel were obtained by force. Apart from the above, reliance is also placed on the decisions of this court, reported in 1981 CR!. L.J. 1298 and 1998 CR1. L.J. 1466, to contend that the FIR cannot be quashed and also orders of the trial court directing the police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 8. Having thus heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, the point for consideration is whether the petitioners have made out a case for quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings thereto. 9. From what has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties and the documents produced by 9 the pelitionrrs’ counsel as additional documents, the follo ing facts emerge. 10. The second respondent filed a complaint with the police on 23.08.2010 stating that. on the previous day is.. on 22.08.20 10. the petitioners came to the house of the complainant and threatened the complainant with dire consequences and the complainant sought for police protection. In the said letter to the police dated 23.08.2010, which was written immediately after the alleged incident on 22.08.20 10, there is no reference made to the abuse by the petitioners in the name of caste of the second respondent. The complainant himself had written one more complaint, which is a typed complaint. on the yen same day i.e.. on 23.08.2010. and in the said complaint reference is made to the incident dated 22.08.20 10 and allegations of abuse in the name of caste are made against the petitioners. Thereafter. the second respondent has given another letter to the police dated 30.08.2010 and the contents of the said letter which was 1..— —‘I, t C) I o ‘ H H Ii C, 4 P g I H V’ i (‘I o 1,’ et a a. r g z I) a. ii ° ‘ >1 It ‘4 ?L 1} ?i I) 11 Ii ‘ (II I, 0 ph ,A r () LI ,$4 HI ci 0 a. CIII o q I 4 II , i a Ii ° 0 a I H a ‘ S. a. 9 (i N ( fi II S z. C J1, jc S r It r C (I I i., C) —‘ , it U U q a 0 It ., 9 flit ;&I1 _ I- ‘(4 I H 4 i — C. cc ci’ V 11 0 ‘1 ? ‘ r it a! ti a (4 9 I, a. 1 (S , it1 L ft ‘ I, ‘ 1 0 I’ LL 5’ ‘ Ii .1 S. ?i In C I 1 C - 0 IL IL $4 Z 11 3 ‘I a. 0 (5 0 H t ‘. C, ‘1 S II extension given to him to deliver the house to the first petitioner and thercibre, the complainant wanted the police not to proceed with the matter and also admitted that he gave the complaint due to mental pressure. Thus, on 30.08.20 10, it is the complainant who had requested the police to drop all the proceedings pursuant to the complaint lodged by him and he and the first petitioner- owner have settled the matter between themselves. 12. Thereafter, the police gave an endorsement to the complainant on the very same date i.e., on 30.08.20 10 and the police stated in the endorsement “4 that, as per the request made by the complainant, the police have accordingly dropped the entire matter, because the complainant did not want the police to proceed with the matter any further. 13. Thus, it is clear that the entire complaint which was based on the incident occurred on 22.08.20 10 was put to an end at the request of the complainant himself and the police dropped the entire proceedings 12 pursuant to the said request. It is only thereafter some of the villagers gate a mass complaint against the complainant on 2T.0.20 10 stating that the second respondent frivolously tiled a complaint on 23.08.2010 and once again referring to the vert same incident said to have taken place on 22.08.20 10. As per the private complaint, the trial court hus directed police investigation and to submit the report and the police registered the case in FIR No.246/2010. 14. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid events. it is disclosed that, at the request of the complainant himself there was an end to the whole affairs and requesting the police not to proceed further. the police accordingis issued endorsement to the complainant. When such is the state of affairs, once again filing a private complaint making allegations in respect of the yen same incident said to have occurred on 22.08.2010. is nothing but indication of the abuse of process of lax’ b3 the second respondent. 11 15. As far as the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for tile second respondent are concerned, while the law laid down in the decisions are well established principles of law. application of them would depend upon the facts of each case. In the instant case. when the complainant himself has expressed his desire9 to put to an end to the whole affairs and makes a request to the police not to pursue the matter and the police acting on that give an endorsement stating that they have closed the whole matter at the request of the complainant, once again filing a private complaint that too on the same allegations, therefore, is nothing but an act to harass the petitioners and the State machiner is unnecessarily made to spend its valuable time and energy to investigate into the whole affairs once again though the matter had been put to an end long back on 30.08 2010 itself at the rrquecl of rnmplainant himself I am therefore of the view that. this is a case ihich comes under the eategon of the abuse of process of la and, as such, the FIR registered by the police 14 subsequent to the private romplaint lodged by the second respondent has to b quashd to meet the ends of justice. 1 u. For the ihove r(Ltsofls. the petition is a1IO\Ved and the FIR in Crime o. 24o 2010 registered by the po1F and furthur pructudings thertu bisd on th private complaini art all quashed. Sdf iUDGE MBS