Steno Legal Dictation No. 151

After filing of charge sheet, this court took cognizance against accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 447, 427, 323, 504 & 506 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and issued summons to them. Accordingly the accused persons appeared before the Court through their counsel and enlarged on bail. Later on, charge sheet copies and prosecution papers were furnished to the accused persons under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard both side on framing of charge, perused the prosecution papers. As there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against the accused persons, the charges has been framed and the same were read over to them, but they denied the contents of charge and claimed for trial. Hence the case was posted for prosecution evidence. In furtherance of the charges leveled against the accused persons, the following points are arisen for my consideration. Even after above said order, the PW2 filed this criminal proceedings instead of following the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and PW1 registered the complaint given by PW2. Further, PW5 filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. It is pertinent to here note that, CW9 and her mother executed Ex. P6 in favour of PW2 to look after the above said 9 properties only on the basis of Ex. P7 that is agreement of sale dated 05.12.2023. But, the civil litigation are pending in different Courts. Such being so, neither the CW9 and his mother nor PW2 cannot act upon Ex. P6 & 7 till the final judgment passed on the civil litigation with respect to above said properties. Apart from that, ignoring the facts, the PW2 filed the instant complaint against the accused persons with respect to properties that is, Agrahara Village with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused No. 1 to 6 and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. Such being so, upon considering the contradictory evidences of PW1 to 7, this Court cannot come to conclusion that, the Accused No. 1 to 6 have committed the alleged offences. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the above alleged incident. This Court is of the view that, criminal prosecution cannot be used as an instrument of harassment with an ulterior motive. Hence, the accused No. 1 to 6 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore, this Court answers the above Point No. 1 in the Negative. Before parting with the record, it would be necessary to clarify herein that the discussions, observations and findings of this Court recorded in the foregoing paragraphs must be understood strictly in the context of the merit of the challenge made in the writ petition and those observations and findings shall in no way come in the way of the investigation in connection with the A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 18/2016, which is stated to be under progress, nor shall it prevent the authorities from taking an independent view as regards the validity of the selection process depending upon the materials