Crime Registered To Wreak Vengeance Cannot Be Accepted | High Court Of Karnataka Quashes FIR Alleging Sexual Offences Between Siblings Amid Property Dispute
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has allowed a criminal petition and quashed an FIR registered for alleged offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 354, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that permitting further investigation into the matter would amount to abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the FIR was quashed and all pending applications were disposed.
The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the registration of Crime No.400 of 2024. The offences invoked included Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 354, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered on 22.05.2024 following a complaint filed by the second respondent.
As per the complaint, the dispute arose among siblings over property bearing Sy.No.25/1 following the death of their mother. The complainant alleged that on 18.05.2024, at about 3.00 PM, while the victim and her brother were walking near the house, the petitioners followed them with the intention to kill them. It was further alleged that the petitioners pushed the victim, attempted to rape her, and harassed her.
Upon registration of the FIR, the petitioners approached the High Court. The Court granted an interim stay of further investigation on 22.07.2024. Subsequently, arguments were heard on merits regarding continuation of investigation.
The petitioners, through learned senior counsel, contended that the FIR was filed as a counterblast to several civil and criminal proceedings pending between the parties. They argued that the property dispute was being projected as sexual offences and if such cases were allowed, it would result in misuse of the POCSO Act to settle personal scores. The counsel submitted that no such incident had occurred and the investigation should be quashed.
In opposition, counsel for the complainant submitted that the investigation was at a nascent stage and offences punishable under Section 354 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the Act had been alleged. It was argued that quashing proceedings at this stage would scuttle the investigation.
During the hearing, the Court directed the State to produce original investigation records. Upon examination, it was found that statements were recorded, including the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
The complaint and the victim's statement revealed that the victim was allegedly pulled by her hair and her clothes were torn. There was, however, no specific allegation regarding inappropriate touching as required for offences under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
The petitioners placed reliance on multiple disputes and litigations pending between the parties.
The Court examined the complaint, statements, and applicable provisions. It recorded: "The allegation is that the victim who at that point in time 17 years old, daughter of the complainant, was pulled by her hair and allegedly touched by the petitioners." It further observed: "Except this statement, there is no statement made by the victim about the petitioners having inappropriately touched the victim."
On the applicability of Section 8 of the POCSO Act, the Court recorded: "There is not even an iota of ingredient present insofar as Section 8 is concerned against these petitioners."
Regarding Section 12 of the Act, the Court held: "None of these ingredients is present even to its remotest sense. Therefore, the offences under Act are loosely laid."
On the allegations under Section 354 IPC, the Court stated: "There is nothing in the complaint to even indicate that there is an offence under Section 354 of the IPC." It concluded: "In the absence of any ingredient under Section 354 of the IPC, permitting investigation against these petitioners even for offence under Section 354 of the IPC would become an abuse of the process of law."
Regarding Section 506 IPC, the Court analysed the requirements under Section 503 IPC. It recorded: "If the ingredients of criminal intimidation as found in Section 503 is pitted qua the complaint, it would indicate that there is no foundation laid for an offence under Section 506 as well."
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held: "Whenever an accused comes before the Court...to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous... the court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely." The Apex Court further held that courts should "take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation."
The High Court recorded: "Complainant is the sister and the petitioners are her brothers. They are fighting for a property by registering several cases. In that light, the crime being registered to wreak vengeance or as a counterblast cannot be accepted. Permitting further investigation into the case at hand qua any offence would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice."
The Court concluded that the case was a misuse of legal provisions to settle personal scores and allowing further proceedings would serve no purpose of justice.
The Court issued the following directions in conclusion: "Criminal Petition is allowed." "FIR in crime No.400 of 2024 pending before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bengaluru stands quashed."
"Pending application, if any, also stands disposed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, Senior Advocate; Sri Rangaswamy R., High Court Government Pleader; Sri D. R. Ravishankar, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Not specifically recorded in the judgment apart from appearing counsels
Case Title: XXX v State of Karnataka and Others
Case Number: CRL.P. 6965 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
[Read/Download order]
