MALLIKARJUN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A lady by name Rukmini Bai W/o Earanna lodged a complaint stating that on 15.11.2014 at about 8.30 p.m. when the complainant, her husband and her relatives Poonappa S/o Lokappa and others were sitting and talking with each other, accused person (petitioner herein) who belonged to Lingayath community knowingfully well that complainant belonged to scheduled caste went near the house of the complainant and abused them in filthy language. The accused person caught hold the hair of the complainant and outraged her modesty and when she screamed for help, the other persons namely, husband and relatives of the complainant came to rescue the complainant at that time, the accused person abused the complainant and her family members referring to her caste. It is also narrated in the complaint itself that there was long standing dispute between the parties in respect of Sy.No.73/1 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas and Sy.No.73/2 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas. In this background, accused person was nurturing ill -will and hatred against the complainant and her family members as such they have committed the said offences. Making the said allegations, the complaint was lodged on 17.11.2014 and police have registered the case in Crime No.195/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 323, 354 of IPC and also for an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the first information report.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is long standing civil dispute between the parties. Of -course, he has produced the plaint copy in O.S.No.22/2013 filed for injunction and the injunction order was refused by the Trial Court and subsequently, accused/petitioner -Mallikarjun approached the appellate Court in M.A.No.22/2013, wherein the appellate Court has granted injunction order by allowing the appeal. The records also show that there was a writ petition between the parties and of -course in all the cases in the civil side, the accused person has one way or the other succeeded. In this background, it is also seen that on 30.10.2014, the accused person has filed a petition in Civil Miscellaneous No.73/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking action against the complainant and others for violation of the injunction order granted by the Court and the Court has ordered notice on 14.11.2014.

(3.) LOOKING to the above said circumstances, there is no dispute that the parties are fighting for the landed properties before the civil Court. At the initial stages, accused and the complainant both have filed application for injunction. Both the applications were dismissed. However, the appellate Court has granted injunction in favour of the accused person. The above said factual aspects show that there was strong motive to fight against each other either on the civil side or on the criminal side. When such being the case, whether the allegations made in the first information report is true or false has to be thrashed out only by way of investigation. At this stage, only on the basis of such civil litigation between the parties, if the proceedings are quashed, it virtually amounts to acquitting the petitioner without there being any enquiry with regard to the truth or falsity of the allegations made in the complaint. In this background, it is worth to note here a decision of the Apex Court reported in in the case of Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 AIR(SCW) 784 wherein the Apex Court has held as hereunder: