Quashed

Smt. Rekha Shetty v. State by Puttur Town Police

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022CRL.P/6853/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR. The Court held that the FIR was lodged by the complainant with an ulterior motive and revengeful intent to falsely implicate the petitioner and circumvent a previous FIR registered against himself, thereby warranting quashing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.125/2016 registered by Puttur Town Police for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quas

Smt. Rekha Shetty Vs State by Puttur Town Police — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6853/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. REKHA SHETTY W/O JAYRAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS CITY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, PUTTUR, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K-574201.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RAJESH RAI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY PUTTUR TOWN POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

SHEIK ISAQ S/O SHEIK HASSAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NELLIKATTE HOUSE PUTTUR, KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K-574201.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1974 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.125/2016 DATED 29.05.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM AT PUTTUR, D.K., AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143,147,448,504,506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC BASED ON THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner-accused and other personnel criminally trespassed into the property belonging to the 2nd respondent and abused and threatened him with dire consequences that if he did not withdraw the case before the Lokayuktha and also removed the house hold articles.

¶21

The Police registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC. Taking exception of the same, the Petitioner-accused is before this Court.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶24

that the FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent to circumvent the FIR registered against him by the Police for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506, r/w 34 of IPC for willfully restraining the petitioner-accused herein from discharging her official duties. Hence, he submits that the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the petitioner-accused with revengeful intent.

¶25

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner-accused having criminally trespassed into the property belonging to the 2nd respondent and having abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences has committed the aforesaid offences and at this stage, the registration of the FIR cannot be interfered with and the allegations made in the FIR requires to be investigated and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

¶28

The petitioner has produced the notice dated 26.03.2016 issued to the 2nd respondent stating not to discharge the drain water to the property of the neighbour and make arrangements to construct septic tank for discharging the said drain water. In pursuance of the notice, the petitioneraccused went to the spot for inspection and the 2nd respondent allegedly willfully restrained the petitioner and others from conducting the inspection. Hence, the petitioner lodged FIR against respondent No.2 and the same is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506, r/w 34 of IPC. To circumvent the registration of the FIR, the 2nd respondent as an afterthought lodged the FIR on the next date i.e. on 28.05.2016 with an ulterior motive to circumvent the FIR registered against him.

¶29

Hence, the FIR lodged by the 2nd respondent is with an ulterior motive so as to falsely implicate the petitioneraccused with revengeful intent. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i. The Criminal petition is allowed.

¶32

¶33

ii. The impugned FIR in Crime No.125/2016 registered

¶34

by the Puttur Town Police Station, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC insofar it relates to petitioneraccused No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

HR

Smt. Rekha Shetty v. State by Puttur Town Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rekha Shetty v. State by Puttur Town Police

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

J a Ahmed Vs State by

Dr Gurukanth Rao N Vs Dr Ranjeetha Shenoy

Manjunatha Vs State by Sub Inspector of Police

Mr Mohammed Mushtaq G.K Vs the Station of Karnataka Rep by

Sri Mahantesha Vs the State by

Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka