ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the records.

(2.) This petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Crime No. 3/2017 registered by Hirebagewadi Police Station on the basis of the reference by the Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections 141, 146, 148, 339, 351, 383, 441, 489, 506 of IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a civil suit pending before the civil Court was disposed of on 27.09.2016 adjudicating the rights of the parties holding that, earlier there was a partition between the parties. Being aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent has been making hectic attempts to harass the petitioners by filing a false complaint against the petitioners herein. Secondly, the learned counsel contends before this court that the complaint averments also do not sufficiently disclose the offences against the petitioners. Further, he submits that the complaint against the petitioners has been filed only with an intention to unnecessarily harass them, on these grounds, the learned counsel submits that the FIR requires to be quashed. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 1992 (supp)(1) 335 : (AIR 1992 SC 604), between State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. The guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case are as follows:-