NARESH D. GANGLANI Vs. STATE BY SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, AT THE INSTANCE OF (SMT. SUSHEELA SHARMA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have sought for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 33531/2011 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore city registered for the offences under Section 323 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. in which they are arrayed as accused No. 1 and 2 in the case respectively. The respondent/police on the basis of the first information lodged by one Smt. Susheela Sharma w/o Santosh Sharma, resident of Nagarbhavi in Bangalore City on 04.03.2011 registered a case in Crime No. 20/2011 against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 323, 506, 379 r/w 149 of I.P.C. The said police on completion of the investigation, submitted final report against the accused showing them as absconding before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore city alleging that they have committed the offences under Section 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. It is alleged that these petitioners on 02.03.2011 have assaulted the complainant Smt. Susheela Sharma and threatened her with dire consequences in connection with site bearing No. 171 situated on 8th 'B' Main road, Sadhashivnagar, Bangalore.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate after the final report came to be filed took cognizance of the offences alleged and as the accused had been shown as absconding in the charge sheet, directed non -bailable warrant against them.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the entire material placed on record under Section 173 of Cr.P.C does not make out any offences as alleged against these petitioners. She further contended that the first informant in this case had also filed similar complaint against the petitioners before Jnanabharathi Police Station and the said police after investigation had submitted 'B' report Learned Counsel further contended that the first informant had also filed a private complaint alleging similar offences and the same came to be dismissed for nan -prosecution. Apart from the same the informant had initiated civil proceedings in this connection and has failed in the same. Despite she having failed in her attempts the present proceedings are initiated hand -in -glove with the police with all ulterior motive to harass them. Therefore, she submits putting the petitioners on trial in this case is a gross abuse of the process of Court and therefore, the entire proceedings be quashed.