VENKATESH B.H. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A FIR was registered for the offences under Ss. 323, 324, 504, 420, 376, 506, 34 of IPC alleging that the accused No.1 had induced the 2nd respondent to part with the sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 promising to purchase a car, and thereafter the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in all received a sum of Rs.18,07,500.00 for purchasing a car in the name of the 2nd respondent, and when the 2nd respondent demanded to return the money, the accused threatened to respondent No.2 with dire consequences, and thereafter the accused No.3 lodged FIRs before the various police stations to harass him. On, 19/5/2016 at 9.30 p.m. and on 20/5/2016 at about 2.30 p.m., the accused came to his house and gave life threat and accused No.1 had forcible sexual intercourse with his wife. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - accused No.2 submits that the alleged incident has taken place on 19/5/2016 and 20/5/2016 respectively, and the complaint was lodged on 4/9/2016 without offering any plausible explanation. He further submits that the dispute between the parties arises out of financial transactions, which is evident from the statement of the wife of the 2nd respondent. Hence, he submits that the FIR was lodged with malice and without probable cause.

(3.) The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent - State submits that the allegation made in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offence, and veracity of allegation requires to be investigated. Hence, the registration of FIR does not warrant any interference.