Allowed

Mr Maxim Mendonsa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2024CRL.P/3877/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging he crashed his car into the complainant's vehicle, brandished a sword and threatened him while transporting cattle. The court found the allegations grossly improbable with no ingredients of Sections 307 or 427 IPC, invoked Bhajan Lal, allowed the petition and quashed the crime.

What did the court decide?

FIR/complaint against petitioner in Crime No.56/2023 pending before Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidre quashed.

Mr Maxim Mendonsa Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21095 CRL.P No. 3877 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3877 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. MAXIM MENDONSA S/O FELIX MENDONSA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.55, PUNKEDADI HOUSE, DAREGUDDE POST, DAREGUDDE GRAMA MOODABIDRE TALUK, MANGALURU – 574 213.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MOODABIDRE PS MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BULIDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

RAVINDRA SHETTY S/O ANGARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT PUNKEDADI HOUSE, DAREGUDDE POST, DAREGUDDE GRAMA,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:21095 CRL.P No. 3877 of 2023

¶18

MOODABIDRE TALUK, MANGALURU – 574 213.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHI, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT AS FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN CR.NO.56/2023 DTD 20-04-2023 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MOODABIDRE POLICE U/S 307, 427 R/W 34 OF IPC BASED ON THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MOODABIDRE, MANGALURU CITY, D.K. DISTRICT.+

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.56/2023, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidre, Mangaluru City, D.K. District, registered for the offences under Sections 307, 427 r/w. 34 of the IPC.

¶25

Heard Sri Balakrishna M.R., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶26

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶27

Respondent No.2 is the complainant. It is the allegation

¶28

in the complaint that on 19.04.2023, an incident takes place,

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21095 CRL.P No. 3877 of 2023

¶30

when the petitioner is said to be driving a vehicle and crashed into the vehicle of the complainant on the ground of certain altercations. This has lead to registration of a crime on an added score that the petitioner got out of the vehicle, took out a sword and threatened the complainant that he would kill. On this ground, the complaint comes to be registered and it becomes a crime in Crime No.56/2023 for the offences under Sections 307, 427 r/w. 34 of the IPC. Registration of the crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that a perusal at the complaint would not indicate any ingredients of Sections 307 and 427 of the IPC. An altercation on the street between the petitioner and the complainant, has lead to registration of a frivolous complaint against the petitioner.

¶32

Though the complainant is served on 21.09.2023, has remained unrepresented even today.

¶33

Learned High Court Government Pleader though would seek to refute the submissions contending that the investigation in the case should be permitted as the crime

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21095 CRL.P No. 3877 of 2023

¶35

narrates certain ingredients of Sections 307 and 427 of the IPC. Therefore, he would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶36

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶37

The issue at this juncture lies in a narrow compass as what is called in question is registration of a crime on 20.04.2024. What has triggered the registration of the crime is the complaint. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint registered by respondent No.2. It reads as follows:

¶38

“�ಾನ� �ಾ�ಾ��ಾ�ಯವರು , ಮೂಡ��ೆ ಆರ�ಕ�ಾ�ೆ , ಮೂಡ��ೆ ಇವರ

¶39

ರ ೕಂದ� $ೆ%& ಅಂಗರ$ೆ%& ಅವರಮಗ )ಾ�ಯಸು�ಾರು 49 ವಷ+ ,ಾಸ : ಪ.uÉÌದ/ಮ0ೆ , ದ1ೆಗು2ೆ3 ಅಂ4ೆ ಮತು67ಾ�ಮ ಮೂಡ��ೆ� 8ಾಲೂಕು --¦AiÀiÁð¢zÁgÀgÀÄ

¶40

ಮತು6

¶41

1. �ಾ�;<ಂ=ಂ2ೋನ< )ೆ>?< =ಂ2ೋನ< ಅವರಮಗ

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:21095 CRL.P No. 3877 of 2023

¶44

,ಾಸ ; ಪ.uÉÌದ/ಮ0ೆ ,

¶45

ದ1ೆಗು2ೆ3 ಅಂ4ೆ ಮತು67ಾ�ಮ ಮೂಡ��ೆ� 8ಾಲೂಕು

2. ಪ.ತ� ,ಾ@ಾA/

ಮತು6ಇತರಮೂರುಜನ

---ಆ1ೋCತರು

�ಾನ�1ೆ ,

1). 0ಾನು =ೕ@ಾ�DEದ Fಾಸದ>G ,ಾಸ6ವ�ದ>GದುH , I0ಾಂಕ 19-04-2023 ರಂದು 1ಾJ� 12.00 ಗಂKೆಯಸಮಯ�ೆ� ನಮL 0ೆ1ೆಮ0ೆಯ�ಾ�;<ಂ =ಂ2ೋನ< ಅವರ ಮ0ೆಯ>G ದನಕರುಗಳN OೊOೆP Qಾಕಲು )ಾ�ರಂREದುH , ದನಗಳನು� ,ಾಹನ�ೆ� ತುಂ�ಸುವಶಬH�ೇVದುH . ತ�ಣ 0ಾನುನನ� EXY& �ಾರುಸಂZೆ� KA-19MM-4789 ರ>G ನನ7ೆ ದನಗಳ OೊOೆPಯ ಶಬH �ೇಳNವ ಸ[ಳ�ೆ� Qೋದಂತಹ ಸಮಯದ>G �ಾ�;<ಂ =ಂ2ೋನ< ಅವರ ಮ0ೆಯ ಅಂಗಳದ>G �ಾ�;<A =A2ೋನ< ಮತು6ನನ7ೆ ಪ�ಚಯಇರುವಪ.ತ6,ಾ@ಾA/ಮತು6ಇತರಮೂರುಜನ ದನಗಳನು� ಬ@ಾ8ಾ�ರ,ಾ]C?ಅY,ಾಹನ�ೆ� ತುಂ�ಸುJ6ರುವ.ದು ನನ7ೆ ಕಂಡು ಬಂತು . ನನ� �ಾರನು� 0ೋ/ದತ�ಣ �ಾ�;<ಂ =ಂ2ೋನ<ನು ನನ�ನು� ಉ�ೆHೕ_E _'_ ಆಯ` ಅ/? )ಾ2ೊಂabೕ@ೆ _'’_ ಎಂದು QೇVದತ�ಣ ಪ.ತ6,ಾ@ಾA/ ಮತು6 ಇತರ ಮೂರು ಜನ C? ಅY ,ಾಹನದ>G ಕುVತು ಅದರ>G ಪ.ತ6 ,ಾ@ಾA/ ನನ7ೆ ತ@ಾXd 8ೋ�E ಹJ6ರ ಬಂದ>G �ನ�ನು� �ೊef �ೊಂದು Qಾಕುವ.�ಾ] QೇV , ನನ�ನು� �ೊ@ೆ �ಾಡುವ ಉ�ೆHೕಶIಂದ C?ಅY ,ಾಹನIಂದ ನನ� �ಾ�7ೆ ಗುIH Qೋ]ರು8ಾ61ೆ .

¶51

2) �0ೆ� ತಡ1ಾJ� ಆ]ದH�ಂದCgಾ+Iಯನು� �ೕಡಲುಅhಾಧ�,ಾ]ದುH , ಈIನCgಾ+Iಯನು� �ೕಡುJ6�ೆHೕ0ೆ .

¶52

ಆದH�ಂದ ಅಕ�ಮ 7ೋವ.ಗಳ ಕಳkತನ �ಾ/ ಅಕ�ಮ 7ೋhಾ7ಾಟ �ಾಡುJ6ರುವ ಮತು6 ನನ� �ೊ@ೆ �ಾಡಲು ಯತ� �ಾ/ರುವ ಆ1ೋCತರ ರುದm ಸೂಕ6 �ಾನೂನು ಕ�ಮ �ೈ7ೊಂಡು ನನ7ೆ 0ಾ�ಯ ಮತು6 ರ��ೆಯನು� MzÀV¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVತಮL>Gಈಮೂಲಕ ನಂJE�ೊಳNkJ6�ೆHೕ0ೆ .

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:21095 CRL.P No. 3877 of 2023

¶55

The allegation of the complainant is that, on 19.04.2023, at about 12.00 a.m., the neighbour, the present petitioner was heard of trying to transport cattle and it was also seen by the complainant that cattle were loaded into the Swift Car bearing certain registration number. After loading, it transpires that

¶56

the cattle began to scream and therefore, the complainant is said to have followed the Swift Car and the petitioner is said to have taken out a sword and threatened the complainant to kill him. Therefore, the offences under Sections 307 and 427 of the IPC are laid against the petitioner.

¶57

The facts narrated are shrouded with gross improbability. The allegation is that, the complainant saw the petitioner carrying two or three cattle in Swift Car and he chased the Car. It is ununderstandable as to how a single cattle could get into a Swift Car, let alone two or three cattle. It is this improbability of the very allegation that enures to the benefit of the petitioner. There is not even a spec of ingredient of mischief or attempt to murder as is alleged in the complaint. Section 307 of the IPC is deliberately invoked to settle some other scores by the complainant against the petitioner. If further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would run foul

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:21095 CRL.P No. 3877 of 2023

¶60

of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL ( 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335),

¶61

wherein it has held as follows:

¶62

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶63

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶64

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶65

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶66

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:21095 CRL.P No. 3877 of 2023

¶67

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶68

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶69

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶70

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶71

16. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtr a² .

¶72

(Emphasis supplied)

¶73

In the light of the facts narrated hereinabove and the

¶74

judgment of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, the petition deserves to succeed.

¶75

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:21095 CRL.P No. 3877 of 2023

¶76

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

a. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶79

b. The impugned Crime No.56/2023, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidre, Mangaluru City,

¶80

D.K. District, stands quashed.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Mr Maxim Mendonsa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Maxim Mendonsa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Almas Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. a N Chandra Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Rakesh Kr Dutta @ Rakesh Kumar Dutta Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Varun v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Hemantha P Vs State of Karnataka by