Read Judgment]
The Karnataka HC has recently quashed all the proceeding against the accused on the ground of delay of 45 days in lodging the FIR. The court after considering the material on record found that the Investigating officer does not furnish any plausible explanation for the delay and hence liable to be quashed.
Facts
The
FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that accused No.1 was due
a sum of Rs.66,00,000/- and he had lodged the FIR against the accused
No. 1. When the respondent No.2 (Babu Lal) and accused No.1 met at
Prakash Café as to settle the matter, at that point of time, the accused No.1
and petitioner –accused No.2 herein, abused the 2nd respondent in
filthy language and gave threat to his life and also assaulted him with
their hands. Thereafter, the
police after investigation submitted the chargesheet against the
petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Section 323,
504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Subsequently, the magistrate took cognizance for
the aforesaid offences and issued summons to the petitioner
Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.c praying to quash the entire proceeding registered
against the Appellant for the offence punishable under 323, 504, 506 r/w
34 of IPC.
Contention Made
Petitioner: That the alleged incident had taken place 45 days prior to lodging of the FIR. However, there is no plausible explanation offered in the FIR for the delay in lodging the FIR. Further that in the absence of any statement of the employees or customers recorded under Section 161 of IPC, the chargesheet filed by the police in the absence of any corroborative material is without any substance.
Respondent: That the chargesheet material clearly discloses the commission of the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
Court Observation
The Bench reiterates the judgment of apex court in the case of State of AP vs. M.Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582, and observe that it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.”
The Bench further observed that, to constitute the commission of the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, the police have not placed any material that the respondent No.2 sustained any simple injuries due to the alleged assault made by the petitioner. Further, to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 of IPC, the intention of insult must be of such a degree to provoke breach of public peace or commission of any other offence.
Judgment
The HC while quashing all the proceedings against the petitioner has held that, in the absence of any plausible explanation offered by the respondent, the FIR lodged against the petitioner is with malice and without any probable cause. Hence, it would be an abuse of process of law, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued against the petitioners, since the probability of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak.
Case: B. Durga Ram vs Babu Lal & State
Citation: W.P. NO. 2072 OF 2017
Bench: Justice Hemant ChandanGoudar
Decided on: 2nd June, 2022.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments