H N VENAKTESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners before the Court are Government servants belonging to the Forest Department. On 27-9-1999 they had registered an offence against two persons for offences under the Karnataka Forest Act on the ground that they had encroached on forest land. They were arrested on the evening of that day and produced before the trial Court on 28-9-1999. The record indicates that the accused in the forest case were released on bail by the Court on the same day. Five days later i. e. , on 2-10-1999, the accused in the earlier case lodged a complaint with the police authorities of the Shanivara Santhe police station alleging offences punishable under Sections 447, 457, 323 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and Section 3 (i) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police registered an offence pursuant to this complaint and the present petition seeks quashing of that complaint. The short ground urged is that the complaint itself makes out no case but more importantly that it is false and motivated and that it has been filed as a counterblast by the accused in the forest case in order to hit back at the Forest Officers who had taken action against them.

(2.) THE respondent's learned advocate submitted that the issues canvassed in this petition viz. , the allegation that the complaint is false and motivated, as also the question as to why it was filed after a delay of five days are both matters that will have to be put to the witnesses at the time of the trial, that these are questions of evidence and that the explanation will be tendered to the trial court and that it is well settled law, that the investigation cannot be quashed on these grounds.

(3.) A perusal of the record before me clearly indicates that the complainant was in custody for only one day. The order passed by the learned Magistrate very clearly indicates that when questioned, the accused stated that they haveno complaintagainst the Forest Officers. This statement recorded by the learned Magistrate is of some significance. Secondly, a perusal of the complaint itself will indicate that virtually no case is made out. Under criminal law, making vague statements in a complaint is totally insufficient unless specific facts and details are set out and secondly, having regard to the background of this case, it is more than clear to this Court that the complaint was lodged with the police only as a counterblast. One of the tests which this Court will apply is as to whether the complaint even assuming it is sustained, could even result in a conviction. On the material before the Court even assuming the complainant is able to elaborate on the same by producing persons to reproduce what is stated in the complaint. I do not visualise the remotest possibility of a conviction. This Court also needs to take into account the fact that the petitioners are Forest Officers acting in discharge of their duties and that it is more than clear, that the sole purpose of lodging the counter-complaint was in order to dilute or get away from the offences with which the complainant was charged.