CHITTAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. seeking quashing of the F. I. R. registered in Cr. No. 172/2000 on the file of Jagalur Police Station. The petitioners contended that one Rathnamma and Bhagymma along with others assaulted the first petitioner on the ground that he had informed to the press people about the incident of rape alleged to have been committed by one Manjunatha. The said incident took place on17-10-2000 at 9. 00 a. m. in Magadi village. The police registered the case in Crime No. 163/2000 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 114, 323, 324, 353, 355 and 506 r/w Section 149, IPC. The investigation is said to be pending. On the same day at 2. 30 p. m. on the complaint of Rathnamma, a case is registered in Crime No. 172/2000 on the file of Jagalar police station against the petitioners alleging that they have indulged in acts of assault against Rathnamma and Bhagyamma and committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324,352, and 355 r/w Section 149, IPC. The contents of FIR relating to Crime No. 172/2000 on 17-10-2000 at 2. 40 p. m. Rathnamma and her daughter Bhagyamma after purchase of ration when they were standing at N. M. C. Hotel, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, came and assaulted Bhagyamma and Rathnamma and at the intervention of the persons named in the FIR, the said accused have been saved and on the basis of the FIR lodged by the respondent, the police have registered the case in Crime No. 172/2000.

(2.) IT is the contention of the petitioners that the loding of FIR in Crime No. 172/2000 actuated with malice and as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the first petitioner, a false case is set up. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire version set out in the complaint of Rathnamma is false and therefore, liable to be quashed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the learned S. P. P. for some time, I feel the petition lacks merit and no relief can be granted. There is nothing illegal on the part of the police registering the FIR when a commission of cognizable offence is reported. The mere fact that earlier to the FIR in question, a FIR was lodged by the first petitioner cannot be a sole basis to disbelieve the varacity of the contents in Crime No. 172/2000. The cases have now been registered and the police have taken up investigation and it is only in the process of investigation, the truth would be revealed. It is not proper and possible to appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the contentions raised by the petitioner at this stage, which is very premature. Whatever, the contentions, raised are purely factual in nature. Unless the investigation is complete and police file the final report, it cannot be said at this stage whether the averments in the FIR of Crime No. 172/2000 is false or otherwise. Therefore, under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.