Muniraju vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

The petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR registered in Crime No. 92/2014 by the Anugondanahalli Police for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 342, 504, 506(b), 427, 395 r/w. 149 of IPC and Sections 3 & 25 of Arms Act, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Hoskote Taluk.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contends that the petitioner and the second respondent are no other than the cousin brothers and there is a civil dispute between the parties. Further added to that, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has not committed any offence, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He further submitted that there are some interpolations in the FIR, therefore, contents of FIR cannot be relied upon as a gospel truth. Except producing the FIR, nothing is there on record to come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint are false.

On plain reading of the complaint, as rightly contended by the complainant that there are some small interpolations but the name of the petitioner is specifically mentioned stating that on the date of the incident, the petitioner herein who had been threatening the respondent No. 2 with dire consequences of killing him and on that particular date, he came along with 60 persons in four tractors and one JCB, demolished the house of the second respondent and caused loss to an extent of Rs. 5 lakhs. The complainant (respondent No. 2) herein peeped through the window of his house and saw that this petitioner was holding a pistol in his hand and threatened the respondent No. 2 with dire consequences of killing him and other persons who accompanied the petitioner were also holding deadly weapons like longs and choppers and they also threatened him with dire consequences of killing him. Though the FIR does not disclose the registration number of the Tractor or JCB and also the names of the other accused persons, but nevertheless there is a specific allegation of demolition of the house of the complainant and causing loss of Rs. 5 lakhs and also threatening him with dire consequents of killing by showing pistol. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Licence holder of pistol, but that has to be ascertained during the course of investigation and to find out as to whether the said weapon is used for commission of any offence or not. At this threshold stage, it is not fair enough to quash the entire proceedings when the allegations made in the FIR are sufficient to constitute the offences alleged.

It is worth to note here a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, , wherein it has categorically held at para 27.13 in the following manner:

"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."

On perusal of the FIR, it discloses the commission of some offence and that has to be investigated by the Police. Ultimately, if the Police found that no offence is committed, the Police may file B-report to the Court. At this stage, this Court cannot imagine as to what report the Police may file after investigation Therefore, in the above circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to quash the FIR itself. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.