AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, J.—Complaint has been lodged on. 28 March 2009 alleging that the petitioners 1 to 4 have taken the complainants by force and kept them in their wrongful custody and thereafter on the next day the complainants were forced to register the documents in their favour. According to the complainants, the said action was committed on 20 March 2009 and the complaint was lodged on 28th March 2009 and the FIR was filed before the Court on 29 March 2009. The police have registered the complaint on the basis of the complaint of Smt. Varalaxmi, W/o. Krishna, for the offences punishable u/s 365, 506B and 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner is working as a teacher in the Government School, 2nd petitioner is his wife and petitioner No. 3 is running a fair price shop at Garvebhavi Palya and the 4th petitioner is assisting his elder brothers and further it is submitted that the total context of the complaint that the entire family members have committed an offence is false. If realty the petitioners had committed the same, the complaint should have been filed immediately after 20th March 2009. But the complainant has taken seven days to file the complaint and the FIR is filed before the Court after two days of the complaint. Hence, the case in its entirety is doubtful and hence, the petitioners be granted the relief u/s 438 IPC.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that what has been stated by the petitioners cannot be believed. The contention of the petitioners have been conceded by the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Misc. No. 1293/2009 and the by order dated 21st April, 2009 the same has been rejected and the petitioners haw not made out any new grounds to consider their prayer. Hence, he submits that this petition may be dismissed.
The complaint has been lodged on 28th March 2009 alleging that the petitioners have committed offenses punishable u/s 365, 506-B and 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC. From the contents of the complaint, it is seen that the Criminal action is said to have been committed on 20th March 2009. However, the complainants have taken a considerable length of seven days time in lodging the complaint. This itself shows that sufficient time is taken by the complainant in lodging the complaint. The police have registered the case of the complainant on 28th March 2009. However, they have taken two days time to file the FIR to the Court. All these things create doubt about the case of the prosecution. The complaint of the family members goes to show that civil dispute between the parties seems to be the basis for filing the criminal case. The parties to the dispute could have sorted out their disputes in the suit. However, criminal case has been filed. In view of the overall circumstances following order is passed:
Petition is allowed. The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail with a condition that till the charge sheet is tiled, the petitioners shall visit the concerned investigation Officer as and when required.