Allowed

Shaik Anwar Sadath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Mar 2021CRL.P/101916/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition filed by accused Nos.1, 2, and 4 seeking to quash criminal proceedings in CC No.849/2015. The Court quashed the proceedings citing inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, contradictory versions given by the complainant, and an endorsement by police that earlier complaint averments were false, deeming the proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in CC No.849/2015 against the petitioners and the pending IA No.1/2019 are quashed and disposed of.

Shaik Anwar Sadath Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO.101916 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHAIK ANWAR SADATH S/O SHAIKSHAVALI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O HOUSE NO.28/2, R.T NAGAR, 6^TH CROSS, BENGALURU.

¶8

SHAIK MEHBOOB BASHA (S.M. BASHA) S/O SHAIKSHAVALI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O EX-SERVICEMAN COLONY, 8^TH CROSS, BELLARY.

¶9

SHANAWAZ S/O SHAIKSHAVALI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC:NIL, R/O HOUSE NO.17, RADIO PARK, BEHIND M.R.K., FUNCTION HALL, CONTONMENT, BELLARY.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.ARAVIND D KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR COWLBAZAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶14

USHA K W/O SREEIVAS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

R/O #80, KALYAN CONSTRUCTIONS, 2^ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, CONTONMENT, BELLARY.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1) (R2-SERVED)

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.849/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELLARY REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 448, 323, 324, 506(2), 354 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.849/2015, pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, registered for offence punishable under Sections 504, 448, 323, 324, 506(2), 354 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2/Complainant has

¶24

been served but unrepresented.

¶25

¶26

The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively in CC No.849/2015 pending before the trial Court. Accused No.3 is said to be no more.

¶27

In the complaint lodged before the respondent/Police, respondent No.2/complainant has averred that she was introduced to accused Nos.1 and 2 to do mining investments along with accused No.5 i.e. father of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is alleged that she had given huge amount to the said persons, pursuant to which they issued post dated cheques, pro-notes and promised to give good returns with interest on her investments. She had instituted criminal case against them. On 5.4.2014 at 12.30 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 5 and others came in a red Scorpio vehicle armed with deadly weapons and trespassed into her house and assaulted her with said deadly weapons and accused No.1 tore her blouse and also kicked one Aruna, who came to her rescue. It

¶28

¶29

is further alleged in the complaint that even on 6.10.2014 at 7.30 p.m., the accused came to her house and threatened her to return the cheques, pro-notes or to face dire consequences.

¶30

According to the complainant, the first incident took place on 5.4.2014 during mid-night. The complaint is lodged on 18.10.2014. In the complaint, no reasons are given for reporting the incident belatedly, wherein the delay is more than six months from the date of the incident.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of the Court to Annexures-E and F to contend that with regard to the alleged incident, the complainant lodged a frivolous complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ballari as per Annexure-E and in turn, after an enquiry by the jurisdictional Police, an endorsement was issued by the police stating that the complaint averments are false.

¶32

¶33

I have perused the complaint at Annexure-

¶34

E. Even the said complaint is dated 22.4.2014

¶35

which is more than two weeks after the date of alleged incident. Perusal of the averments in the said complaint does not show that there was any allegation made by the complainant that she was assaulted by any of the accused. On the other hand, she has stated that the accused came near her house and started shouting and when she came out and forcibly pushed the gate, she and her employee Aruna sustained injuries etc. It is relevant to see that, she has not at all stated about the said complaint given by her to the Superintendent of Police and the endorsement issued by the jurisdictional Police as per Annexure-F, in the subsequent complaint lodged by her.

¶36

Learned HCGP would contend that the complainant has taken treatment in the hospital and as per wound certificate, she has sustained

¶37

¶38

certain injuries. He submits that though the injuries sustained by her are simple in nature, the same would go to show that some incident has taken place and therefore, there is a prima facie case against the accused/petitioners.

¶39

As already observed, in the complaint given by respondent No.2 to the Superintendent of Police, she has not alleged that the accused have assaulted her. On the other hand she has stated that when she pushed the gate, she and her employee sustained injuries. Even after the endorsement was issued by the police as per Annexure-F, which is dated 31.5.2014, the complainant has kept quiet and the present complaint has been lodged on 18.10.2014. FIR is lodged against accused Nos.1 to 5. However, while filing the charge sheet, name of accused No.5 has been deleted.

¶40

The complaint averments go to show that there is some dispute between the

¶41

¶42

complainant and the accused/petitioners. In the complaint, it is further alleged that on 6.10.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., the accused persons once again came near her house and threatened her with dire consequences asking her to return the cheques and pro-notes. In view of the dispute between the parties and considering that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and in view of contradictory versions given by the complainant and further, in view of the endorsement issued by the police as per Annexure-F, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

a) Petition is allowed.

¶45

b) The entire proceedings in CC No.849/2015 pending on the file of

¶46

II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,

¶47

¶48

Ballari, for offence punishable under Sections 504, 448, 323, 324, 506(2), 354 read with Section 34 of IPC, initiated against the petitioners, is hereby quashed. c) Pending IA No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and same is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

JTR

Shaik Anwar Sadath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Anwar Sadath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Annapurna Distributors Vs Abhraham R. Disoja

Sri Mohan Chandran Nair Vs M/S Chaitra Projects Ltd.

Sri. Sanjay S/O Suresh Chougale Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Gajanan S/O Vasant Kokate Vs State of Karnataka

Clean Foods Limited Vs the Director of Agricultural