AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. B. Keshava Kumar, High Court Government Pleader Sri. Mahesh Shetty, and Sri. Mayur D. Bhanu,
learned counsel for respondent no.2.
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR in Cr.No.174/2020 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 384 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC. The second respondent made a report to the police on 10.12.2020 stating that himself and the
petitioner are doing business in partnership and that the petitioner had lent him some money for the sake of business. It appears that the complainant
i.e., respondent no.2 was due to pay a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- to the petitioner and in order to recover the same, it is alleged that on 7.12.2020 at 6. 00
p.m. the petitioner went to the house of the complainant and threatened the complainant and his family members. On that day he had taken with him
some rowdy elements also.
It is the argument of the petitioner's counsel that prima facie reading of the complaint does not constitute any offence. According to the complaint,
the complainant was due in a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- to the petitioner. In order to avoid repayment, false complaint has been registered against the
petitioner. The matter is purely civil in nature. All the allegations are false and therefore FIR needs to be quashed.
Learned Government Pleader submits that still the matter is in the crime stage and the matter is under investigation. Therefore there is no ground to
entertain the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
It may be a fact that the petitioner and the complainant were doing business together and in that connection the complainant might be due in a
certain sum of money to the petitioner. But there is a clear allegation that on 7.12.2020, the petitioner took rowdy elements with him and threatened
the complainant in the guise of recovering the money. If at all any money is due to the petitioner, he has to take recourse to civil action. The
allegations made in the complaint need to be investigated. If according to the petitioner no such incident had taken place, the Investigating Officer will
file the 'B' report. Since investigation is not yet completed, I do not find that there can be interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is well established
principle that the courts should not interfere with the investigation process. Therefore I do not find any merit in the petition. It is dismissed.