OM PRAKASH Vs. SRI. PRASHANTH D'COSTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matter is listed for orders today, having regard to the short point involved, the matter was heard on merits. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner arrayed as accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 1861/03 on the file of Additional JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against him in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 347, 504, 506 and 324 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE respondent filed a private complaint alleging the aforesaid offences against these petitioners and two others, based on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses, directed registration of the case and also ordered issue of summons. It is an undisputed fact that on an earlier occasion, this petitioner had filed criminal petitions before this Court in Crl.P. Nos. 449/2004 and 870/2004, to quash the private complaint lodged by the respondent on the ground that a prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was necessary and in the absence of such sanction, the Magistrate has no power to take cognizance of the offence. After hearing both the sides, the said petitions came to be dismissed by the order dated 04.01.2008. Thereafter, during the pendency of the proceedings, respondent -complainant filed an application under Section 320(2) r/w Section 257 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Trial Court seeking permission of the Court to compound the offences alleged against accused Nos. 2 and 3. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application and closed the prosecution as against accused Nos. 2 and 3 as compounded. It is thereafter, the petitioner has presented this petition on the ground that since the main allegations made in the complaint are against accused Nos. 2 and 3 and it was at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 3, the alleged incident said to have occurred, the case against this petitioner also ought to have been closed as compounded; that there has been inordinate delay in completion of the trial of the case, since the matter is pending from the year 2003 from last over 10 years. When the matter was listed before this Court on 26.04.2013, this Court while ordering issue of notice, granted stay as prayed for. On appearance, the respondents have filed application for vacating stay.

(3.) AS noticed supra, the case against accused Nos. 2 and 3 was closed as compounded at the instance of respondent -complainant. Reading of the allegations made in the complaint, a copy of which is produced along with this petition, prima facie indicates that serious allegations have been made against this petitioner to the effect that this petitioner, while working as PSI of Uppinangadi Police Station, abused the complainant and his friend in filthy language and unparliamentary words and also threatened them with dire consequence of their lives. Of course several serious allegations have been made against accused 2 and 3 also. Merely because the complainant decided to compound the offences against accused 2 and 3, petitioner cannot insist that the case against him also must be compounded. The complainant, at his choice could continue the prosecution against only some of the accused and compound the offence against others. Therefore, the petitioner as a matter of right cannot seek a direction to the complainant to compound the offence against him also. Therefore, there is no substance in the said contention urged.