The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.2 on 14.12.2017 morning at 10 O'clock the accused No.2 i.e., petitioner No.2 called through his mobile to the mobile of the complainant/ respondent No.2 and abused him in vulgar language asserting that he is visiting Arkat Darga and threatened him that if he again visits the said Darga he would assault and cause his death and also abused his mother and brothers. It is also alleged in the complaint that petitioner No.2/accsued No.2 abused the complainant through mobile at the instance of petitioner No.1/accsued No.1. Based on the complainant, the Investigating Officer has registered the case in Crime No.55/2018, and subsequently, after completing the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint is lodged in collusion with police officials and a false complaint has been filed. The petitioner No.1/acused No.1 has been implicated on the false allegation that he is instigated petitioner No.2/accused No.2. That nothing has been seized from the custody of petitioners and recording of the photo clippings is also not produced and the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are non-cognizable and sanction is not obtained. Hence, he would submit that the prosecution itself is only to harass without there being any material, and hence, he has sought for allowing the petition by quashing the proceedings.
The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant submit that the petitioners have indulged in the act of commission of the offense and petitioner No.2 has threatened the complainant by abusing him in filthy language through mobile and recording is there in the mobile and petitioner No.1 has instigated petitioner No.2 for the commission of the offense. Hence, it is submitted that there is sufficient material and as such sought for rejection of the petition.
The court held that It is simply asserted in the complaint that petitioner No.2 was doing it at the instigation of petitioner No.1. Except for this bald assertion in the complaint, there is absolutely no material to show that petitioner No.1/accsued No.1 is involved in the alleged offense of instigation at any point in time. On the contrary, the charge sheet is submitted by the Investigating Officer making allegations that both the petitioners have called the complainant/respondent No.2 and threatened him, which is not the case made by the complainant/respondent No.2. The statement of the witnesses also discloses that they are all hearsay witnesses. Under these circumstances, there is no material to prosecute the petitioner No.1/accsued No.1.