AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Kempanna
The petitioners in the petition preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. have sought for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 33531/2011 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore city registered for the offences u/s 323 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. in which they are arrayed as accused No. 1 and 2 in the case respectively. The respondent/police on the basis of the first information lodged by one Smt. Susheela Sharma w/o Santosh Sharma, resident of Nagarbhavi in Bangalore City on 04.03.2011 registered a case in Crime No. 20/2011 against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 323, 506, 379 r/w 149 of I.P.C. The said police on completion of the investigation, submitted final report against the accused showing them as absconding before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore city alleging that they have committed the offences u/s 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. It is alleged that these petitioners on 02.03.2011 have assaulted the complainant Smt. Susheela Sharma and threatened her with dire consequences in connection with site bearing No. 171 situated on 8th ''B'' Main road, Sadhashivnagar, Bangalore.
The learned Magistrate after the final report came to be filed took cognizance of the offences alleged and as the accused had been shown as absconding in the charge sheet, directed non-bailable warrant against them.
The petitioners/accused have filed the present petition seeking for quashing the entire proceedings pending on the file of the learned magistrate.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the entire material placed on record u/s 173 of Cr.P.C does not make out any offences as alleged against these petitioners. She further contended that the first informant in this case had also filed similar complaint against the petitioners before Jnanabharathi Police Station and the said police after investigation had submitted ''B'' report Learned Counsel further contended that the first informant had also filed a private complaint alleging similar offences and the same came to be dismissed for nan-prosecution. Apart from the same the informant had initiated civil proceedings in this connection and has failed in the same. Despite she having failed in her attempts the present proceedings are initiated hand-in-glove with the police with all ulterior motive to harass them. Therefore, she submits putting the petitioners on trial in this case is a gross abuse of the process of Court and therefore, the entire proceedings be quashed.
A perusal of the papers, which have been made available to the Court discloses that, on the basis of the first information filed by Smt. Susheela Sharma, Sadhashivnagar Police have registered the case against the accused and on completion of the investigation have submitted final report before the VII ACMM Bangalore City alleging that they have committed the offences under Sections 323 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The petitioners have been shown as absconding in the charge sheet.
It is alleged that these petitioners had picked up quarrel with the complainant on 02.03.2011 in connection with site No. 171 situated on 8th main road, Sadashivnagar, assaulted her and also threatened her with dire consequences.
The learned counsel vehemently contended the entire material on record does not make out any offence against the petitioners and in view of the earlier proceedings having ended in favour of the petitioners the proceedings now initiated against them be quashed. She further contended as the petitioners are residing in abroad they are shown as absconding in the charge sheet.
It is to be noted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Magistrate as a warrant case. Section 239 of Cr.P.C provides for discharge of the accused, if the Magistrate upon considering the materials placed before him u/s 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the magistrate thinks necessary and after hearing the prosecution and the accused if he considers the charge against the accused to be groundless he shall discharge the accused by recording reasons.
In the present case according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the material on record does not make out any offence and in view of the earlier proceedings having ended in their favour putting the petitioners on trial is a gross abuse of the process of the Court thereafter the proceedings be quashed.
In view of what is contemplated u/s 239 of Cr.P.C as it enables the petitioners to seek for discharge on the ground that the charge against them is groundless, I do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners to quash the proceedings in exercise of the powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C as otherwise Section 239 of Cr.P.C would be nugatory. Lastly, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the NBW directed against the petitioners be quashed. It is needless for this Court to say that, if in a case the accused has been shown as absconding in the charge sheet and NBW has been directed against him, he has remedy under the code either to seek for grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.