To constitute an offence under Section 34 of IPC, there v. JUDGE

(BY SRI. M.R.C MANOHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY J.C.NAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURT BELOW AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2016 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BENGALURU (CCH-60) IN S.C.NO.18/2016 REGISTERED BY J.C.NAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 364(A) READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM THE AFORESAID CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9507 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2016 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner who is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 364(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC' for short) is before this Court challenging the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC.

#2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 had a financial transaction with the defacto complainant, and the defacto complainant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to accused No.1. Accused No.1 connived with accused Nos.2 to 4 to extract more money from the defacto complainant, and in pursuance to the said conspiracy, accused Nos.2 to 4 abducted the defacto complainant in a car, and took him to the office of accused No.1, and thereafter, he was pressurized to sign on blank papers, and got executed a settlement letter for Rs.15,00,000/-.

#3. The petitioner-accused No.1 filed an application discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC. The trial Court rejected the said application. Hence, this petition.

#4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that except the self serving statement of the defacto complainant, there is no material to substantiate the petitioner-accused No.1 herein instigated accused Nos.2 to 4 to abduct the defacto complainant with an intention to coerce him to execute documents to extort more money. He further submits that CWs.2 and 3 are the wife and father of CW1 and hearsay witnesses, and there is no eye witness to the alleged incident, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9507 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2016 and therefore, the statement of the defacto complainant is not trust worthy and credible, since the petitioner had filed a complaint against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

#5. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State would submit that the charge sheet material discloses that commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner, and veracity of the allegations can be considered at the time of the trial, and at this stage, the same cannot be gone into, and the trial Court has rightly rejected the application for discharge.

#6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

#7. The alleged incident had taken place in a public place at about 7.30 p.m. CW2 to 10 are hearsay witnesses who have stated that the accused herein instigated other accused to abduct the defacto complainant and the information was given to them by CW1.

#8. Admittedly, there was a financial transaction between accused No.1 and the defacto complainant, and a complaint was filed by accused No.1 against the defacto complainant the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution revolves on the statement of the defacto complainant, and the said statement cannot be said to be trustworthy and credible, since there was a financial transaction between accused No.1 and the defacto complainant, and a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the defacto complainant is pending consideration.

#9. To constitute an offence under Section 34 of IPC, there must be a direct or indirect evidence to establish that the CW1 was abducted at the instance of the petitioner herein. In the instant case, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9507 CRL.RP No. 1425 of 2016 there is no eye witnesses to the alleged incident, and the allegations that the petitioner-accused No.1 instigated the other accused to abduct the defacto complainant, is without a substance, and the FIR was lodged with malice and without a probable cause for extraneous consideration. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of law.

#10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated

21.10.2016, passed by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in S.C.No.18/2016 on the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.PC is hereby set aside and the application is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the offences alleged. CH Sd/- JUDGE