IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3321/2017 BETWEEN:
Basavanna S/o Ninganna Aged about 26 years R/at Megalapura Village, B.G.Pura Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District-571 430.
(By Smt. B.M. Nagaveena, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka Talakadu Police, Mysuru District, Mysuru-570 004.
(By Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, SPP-II) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.21/2014 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, T. Narasipura.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. The brief factual aspects of this case are that on 24.7.2013 near Hemmige Circle within the jurisdiction of Talakadu Police, the witnesses by name Sri Ashok and Basheer were discharging their duties as Police Constable. They found that a lorry bearing Registration No.KA 11 7061 came there and in spite of they giving signal to stop the vehicle, the said vehicle did not stop and the driver drove the lorry in a high speed which contained sand. Immediately, the same was informed to the other police personnel and thereafter CWs.1 and 2 namely Sri.M.Basavanna and Shivarudrappa, ASI have chased the said lorry. The said lorry was left abandoned by the driver near a place called Mudukuthore Math. At the same time at about 00.30 hours a motorcycle came to that particular place which was ridden by accused No.1. He in fact abused the police officials with filthy language and tried to assault them with iron rod and thereafter he throw away the said iron rod and went away from the spot. In this connection the police have registered a case under Sections 279, 353, 333, 504, 506, 307, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 42 and 44 of KMMCR Act and under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21(1) of MMRD Act r/w Section 379 of IPC.
3. Of course there is a material to show that accused No.1 was already tried by the Court in S.C.No.40/2014 and he was acquitted by the Court vide judgment dated 27.7.2016 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysore. On perusal of the entire judgment the allegations made against accused No.1 are distinct and separate. When accused No.1 was intercepted by the police, he tried to assault them and abused them. At that time accused No.2 was not at all present. Therefore, the provisions which are attracted so far as accused No.1 is concerned are not attracted in so far as accused No.2.
4. The allegation against this petitioner is that he was driving a lorry bearing No.KA.11 7061 with a sand which was the subject matter of theft. That is the only allegation against this petitioner. In this context the police have also recorded the statement of the owner of the lorry Sri.Chandramohan-CW.14 who has categorically stated about the involvement of this petitioner. Though the offences under Sections 307, 506, 504 are not attracted so far as this petitioner is concerned, the Court has to see at the time of framing of charges which are all the other offences are attracted so far as this petitioner is concerned. Under the said circumstances, when some of the charges attracts some penal provisions so far as this petitioner is concerned, the charge sheet cannot be quashed. However, petitioner has to approach the trial Court as to which are the provisions under which the accused cannot be tried. It can only be done by the trial Court at the time of framing of charges after ascertaining which are the offences actually attracted so far as this petitioner is concerned. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application for discharge before the trial Court and in that eventuality the trial Court has to provide opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the application in accordance with law.
With these observations this petition is disposed of.
ap* Sd/- JUDGE