SHAH SAJID MOHIUDDIN QUADARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.44/2015 for the charges punishable under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act and under Sections 506 , 504 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 448 of IPC registered by the 1st respondent-Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar, against the petitioners.

(2.) The brief facts involved in the case are that petitioner No.1 has filed O.S.No.118/2011 before the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Bidar (for short 'trial court'), for declaration and injunction against Abdul Majeed and Saleema Begum-respondent No.2 herein. The said suit in O.S.No.118/2011 was decreed on 30.03.2013 by the trial court and declared petitioner No.1 herein is absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. After the decree is passed in the said suit, petitioner No.1 had sold 3 guntas of land out of 16 guntas, which was the subject matter of the said suit, to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It is stated that the name of petitioner No.2 is also mutated in RTC extract, which is produced at Annexure-D and after the decree, the name of petitioner No.1 is also mutated as per Annexure-E. It is further stated that respondent No.2 had filed O.S.No.152/2014 in respect of same property. In the said suit in O.S.No.152/2014, I.A.No.1 was filed for grant of temporary injunction and the trial court after hearing the parties, rejected the said application. Therefore, it is contended that respondent No.2 being aggrieved in losing her cases before the various courts had lodged a false complaint before the police on 21.03.2015 which is registered on 22.03.2015 at 9:30 p.m. in a Crime No.44/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 506 , 504 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 448 of IPC and Section 25 of Indian Arms Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lodging of complaint by respondent No.2 as per complaint dated 21.03.2015 is abuse of process of court since having lost her cases before the various courts by getting frustration such false complaint is filed. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on earlier occasion also respondent No.2 had filed private complaint in P.C.No.139/2014 before the Prl.JMFC, Bidar and also FIR in Crime No.191/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 341 , 323 , 420 , 465 , 506 of IPC came to be registered. Therefore, it is submitted that respondent No.2 is in the habit of lodging complaint one after the other and it is nothing but abuse of process of court. Therefore, it is submitted that all the proceedings arising out crime No.44/2015 is liable to be quashed.