PRAKASH M Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

(2.) Notice to respondent No.2/complainant is also duly served and acknowledgement thereof has been produced by learned HCGP and the same is taken on record. 3.Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the landlords of the premises which is alleged to have been let out to respondent No.2. She lodged a private complaint before the learned Addl. Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru alleging that two years back, she was in search of a house for rent and at that time, the first respondent offered the property located on the first floor for a monthly rental of Rs.9,000/- to the complainant in the month of March 2019. Complainant/respondent No.2 demanded rental agreement or to return the advance amount or to leave the house. In that context, it is alleged that first accused and his wife and mother of the wife and his followers viz., accused Nos.2 to 6 were standing in public place and have been abusing her stating that

(3.) On entertaining the private complaint, the same was referred for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly, FIR has been registered against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under sections 406 , 420 , 504 , 506 IPC and section 3(1) (c) and 3(1) (s) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for short 'SC/ ST Act '). Petitioners are before this Court seeking for an order of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations made in the private complaint do not prima-facie attract the ingredients of any of the alleged offences and that the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant to preempt the eviction proceedings. As such, there is no truth or substance in the said allegations and the attempt made by the second respondent being an abuse of process of Court, seek for an order of anticipatory bail.