IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2251 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O NAGALINGAPPA.B AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST 2. TEJASWI S/O GURUMURTHIAPPA.M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST 3. GURUMURTHY S/O NAGALINGAPPA.B AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST 4. MALLIKARJUNA S/O NAGALINGAPPA.B AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST 5. M.M. NAGARAJAPPA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST ALL ARE RESIDING AT KAGINALLI VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201 ... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. GIRISH BANDI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. JITENDRA KUMAR S/O MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A KAGINALLI VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201 2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE RURAL POLICE STATION SHIKARIPURA SHIKARIPURA TALUK REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R2; R1-SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:30.11.12 TAKING OF COGNIZANCE AND DIRECTION TO REGISTER THE SPL.A. AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONERS MADE IN SPL.(A) C.R.NO.06/12 / SPL.A.51/12 ON THE FILE SPL.JUDGE, SHIMOGA; UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 341, 323, 324, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST ACT PA ACT 1989 BEFORE THE SPL. JUDGE AT SHIMOGA ON 23.1.12 AS PER CRIME NO.13/12, AND ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard.
2. Petitioners have challenged order dated 30.11.2012 whereby the learned trial Judge has taken cognizance of offences and issued process.
3. Shri Girish Bandi, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that petitioners’ father had purchased a property bearing Survey No.91, Block No.3 of Gogga village, Shikaripura Taluk, Shimoga District from one T.Devirappa. The said Devirappa had purchased the property from first respondent’s grandmother. First respondent’s grandmother filed an application for restoration of land and the land was restored to her. The litigation culminated in W.P.No.32645/2010 decided on 18.03.2016 whereby the restoration of land was set aside. Thus, in substance, Shri Girish submits that as first respondent could not succeed in his attempt to get the land restored, he filed FIR No.13/2012 on 23.01.2012 alleging commission of offences under various provisions of IPC and Sections 3(1)(X) of SC & ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in the Rural Police Station, Shikaripur, against the petitioner. He submits that the complaint is false and filed due inimical disposition as first respondent did not succeed in getting the land restored.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the records.
5. FIR alleges certain overt-acts which include addressing the complainant by caste and causing injury to him. It also contains an averment that complainant had taken treatment as an in-patient in the hospital. Based on the said complaint, police have filed the charge sheet.
6. The allegation with regard to the assault and addressing the complainant by caste are matters of fact which need to be established after trial. In the circumstances, I find no good ground to interfere by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. Resultantly, the petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Yn.
Sd/- JUDGE