Karnataka High Court: M. Nagaprasanna J. allowed the criminal petition and quashed the impugned order dated 30-07-2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Udupi.
The facts of the case are such the wife of respondent 2/complainant borrowed finance from the Karnataka State Finance Corporation (‘the Corporation’) for establishing Sri Durga Printers and Sri Durga Printers Conventional Hall but failed to pay the loan amount on time pursuant to which the property of respondent 2 was brought to sale by way of public auction. The petitioner became the highest bidder of the property and the property was directed to be handed over to him when the complainant made objections to the auction on the ground that the property was worth more than Rs 55/- lakhs had been sold at Rs 29/- lakhs by the Corporation. Thereafter, the complainant registered an FIR against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had threatened him with life to not interfere with the auction proceedings. Based on the complaint for the alleging offence punishable under Section 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 i.e. IPC, investigation was conducted and ‘B’ report was filed. The petitioner filed a protest petition against acceptance of ‘B’ report under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code i.e. Cr. PC. The Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and on perusal of the report, directed registration of criminal case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC and summons issued. It is at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court in the subject criminal petition.
Counsel for petitioner Mr K. N. Nitish submitted that the entire allegation against the petitioner would not make out an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, the petitioner is innocent of the property that was put to auction and because the petitioner purchased the property belonging to the complainant, the complainant to harm the petitioner has registered the criminal case. It was also submitted that the Magistrate while rejecting ‘B’ report and directing registration of the criminal case, did not apply his mind with regard to the offence alleged or the ‘B’ report and has mechanically ordered registration of the criminal case.
Counsel for respondent Ms B.G. Namitha Mahesh submitted that since the Police have conducted investigation and the Court has not accepted the ‘B’ report, it is a matter for trial and the Magistrate at this stage need not apply his mind as everything would be at large in the trial. The petitioner can as well prove his innocence in the trial Court and this Court at this stage should not interfere or interject the criminal trial.
The Court observed that Section 503 IPC, which defines ‘criminal intimidation’ would direct that whoever threatens another person with any injury to his person, reputation or property by an act, he is not legally bound to do and executes certain threats, commits criminal intimidation. Therefore, the intention of the petitioner ought to have been to do any injury to the complainant, his reputation or property. If the complaint is seen qua Section 506 of the IPC, it does not link any action of the petitioner to Section 503 of the IPC, for an offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC.
The Court further observed that as narrated in the complaint, the property of the complainant was sold by the Corporation for a very less price and the loan was adjusted to the auction money. It is only because the petitioner was the auction purchaser of the property, though, through legal means, the complaint is registered by the complainant. Therefore, there cannot be a better case of giving a criminal colour to a legal act of the Corporation.
The Court relied on judgment Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, (1982) 1 SCC 466 wherein it was observed
……a tendency to perjure is very much on the increase and unless by firm action courts do not put their foot down heavily upon such persons the whole judicial process would come to ridicule. We see some force in the submission but it is equally true that chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court. Complainant herein is an Advocate. He lost in both courts in the rent control proceedings and has now rushed to the criminal court. This itself speaks volumes. Add to this the fact that another suit between the parties was pending from 1975. The conclusion is inescapable that invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court in this background is an abuse of the process of law and the High Court rather glossed over this important fact while declining to exercise its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C.”
The Court further observed that merely because a complainant files a protest petition and gives a statement with regard to his protest petition, the Magistrate ought not be swayed away by such protest petition. It is incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to consider ‘B’ report, protest petition and the evidence on record and record his finding as to why he rejects the ‘B’ report and accepts the protest petition. Application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate while setting the criminal trial in motion, in cases particularly where protest petition is filed against the ‘B’ report by the complainant, becomes sine qua non, failing which, the order taking cognizance notwithstanding the ‘B’ report, becomes a routine exercise. Reasons to be recorded in such circumstances need not be elaborate but must bear application of mind.
The Court thus held “The registration of FIR could not have been done by the Police without at the outset referring the matter to the learned Magistrate. This is yet another infirmity in the entire proceedings. Therefore, on the aforesaid reasons with regard to the application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate and registration of FIR being violative of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. the entire proceedings stand vitiated.”
[Nagaraj Rao v. State, Criminal Petition No. 8922 of 2017, decided on 17-08-2021]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
