Mohd Osman and Ors. Vs the Director General of Police and Ors.

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P. S. RAICHUR WEST TOWN, TALUKA RAICHUR DISTRICT KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY, ADDITIONAL SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-584 101.

¶30

THE SUB- INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJUNATH, P. S. WEST RAICHUR TOWN, KARNATAKA-584 101.

¶31

MD. ABRAR S/O KHAJA MOINUDDIN @ MD SALEEM, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: CENTERING WORK, R/O IDMC LAYOUT, RAICHUR TALUKA, KARNATAKA-584 101.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEARING CRIME NO.87/2023 DATED 03.11.2023 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC, OF P.S. WEST RAICHUR TOWN, ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AT RAICHUR AS CLEAR ABUSE OF PROCESS, HIGHLY ILLEGAL,

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2857 CRL.P No. 200049 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ARBITRARY AND NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS ARE JUST AND NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶39

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

¶43

Heard Sri Faizuddin K. Zardi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶44

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶45

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the FIR initiated by the respondent herein bearing Crime No. 87/2023 Dated 03.11.2023 offences u/s - 406, 420, 504, 506, 149 of P.S. West Raichur Town, on the file of Hon’ble IV Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate, at

¶46

- 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2857 CRL.P No. 200049 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Raichur as clear abuse of process, highly illegal, arbitrary and not maintainable in the eyes of law and pass such other and further orders as are just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.“

¶49

The facts in brief for disposal of the petition are

¶50

as under:

¶51

Sri Mohammed Usman has taken centering sheets and 500 jacks on rent from the complainant on 06.02.2023 at about 05.30 p.m. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioners failed to return the centering sheets and the jacks which were taken on rent and also failed to pay the rent for the same and when demanded, complainant has been threatened with dire consequences. Accordingly, the complainant approached the Raichur West Police on 03.11.2023 with a written complaint for taking action against the accused.

¶52

Based on the written complaint, Raichur West Police registered a case in Crime No.87/2023 on 03.11.2023. The petitioners have subjected themselves to the legal process and are on bail.

¶53

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2857 CRL.P No. 200049 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Learned counsel Sri Faizuddin K. Zardi for the

¶56

petitioners would contend that it is a motivated complaint and the complaint came to be registered after disposal of the writ petition filed by Smt. Naseema Begum and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the present case who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.202786/2023 and as such, continuation of the investigation is totally unwarranted.

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the police are hand in glove with respondent No.6 in foisting the false case against the petitioners and therefore sought for allowing the petition.

¶58

Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri learned counsel Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa appearing for respondent No.6 support the filing of the case and the investigation being continued.

¶59

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

¶60

Court perused the material on record meticulously. On

¶61

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2857 CRL.P No. 200049 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear

¶64

that the petitioners did approach this Court in W.P.No.202786/2023 and there was an order in favour of the petitioners.

¶65

It is the main grievance of the petitioners that despite such an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.202786/2023, a false complaint has been received which is admittedly a belated complaint and a false case has been registered by the Raichur West Police in utter collusion with respondent No.6 resulting in abuse of process of the Court.

¶66

It is now settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that mere registration of the FIR cannot be quashed just for asking. The quashing of the FIR is a rare remedy and power vested in the Court to quash the FIR must be used sparingly.

¶67

In the case on hand, the cause of action arose on 06.02.2023. According to the complaint averments,

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2857 CRL.P No. 200049 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

centering sheets and jacks said to have been obtained by the petitioners in respect of a construction work at Hyderabad on rental basis.

¶71

According to the complainant, the same were not returned nor the rentals were paid which prima facie appears no doubt a civil dispute. But apart from the same, when the complainant had approached the petitioners herein seeking return of centering sheets and payment of rentals, there are threats of dire consequences according to the complaint documents.

¶72

It is now settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that when a cognizable offence is made out in a complaint, police are bound to register the case. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1, police have rightly registered the case.

¶73

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2857 CRL.P No. 200049 of 2024

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Admittedly, petitioners are on bail and

¶76

investigation is on. It is for the investigating agency to find out the truth in the allegations made by the complainant. After investigation, if no case is made out, as is alleged by the complainant, police are required to file necessary report as is contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

¶77

Therefore, since there is a transaction that has been specifically averred by the complainant and filing of writ petition has also taken place show that there was some dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.6. Whether the complaint is a motivated complaint or not, cannot be decided by this Court at this stage by holding the mini trial.

¶78

Suffice to say that the grounds urged by the petitioners at this stage would not be sufficient enough to quash the pending FIR.

¶79

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2857 CRL.P No. 200049 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

However, the petitioners are at liberty to place such necessary materials including the favourable order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition No.202786/2023 at the time of investigation. Police are bound to consider the effect of the same while investigating the matter and are at free to file the necessary final report in respect of the pending FIR. With that observation, following order is passed;

¶82

ORDER

¶83

The Petition is dismissed.

¶84

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶85

RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT:PK

Mohd Osman and Ors. v. the Director General of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Osman and Ors. v. the Director General of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Machendar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa S/O Devappa Vagangera Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajju @ Ajim @ MD Azaroddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Pandurang Vs the State of Karnataka

Abedabi and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

MD Furqan Ahemad Vs the State through