IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.389/2018 BETWEEN 1. DR. L RAMESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH M BOMMANALLI, GULUR HOBLI, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA PRESENT R/AT NO.5/B, 6TH CROSS, OPP: UAS LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE-560094 2. L VENKATESH AGED 54 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH M, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI, KESARAMADU POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
(BY SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SR. ADV. FOR SMT. RACHITA NANAIAH, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA KYATHASANDRA POLICE STATION, TUMKUR DISTRICT AND TALUK REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001 ...PETITIONERS 2. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O KALAIAH, BYRASANDRA, GULURU HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. YASHODHA K.P, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA IN S.C.NO.122/2017 REGISTERED BY KYATHASANDRA POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427,504,306,309 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri M.T.Nanaiah appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. The case of the petitioners is, that they were owners of certain lands bearing Sy. No.29/4 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas of Byrasandra village, Guluru Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and District. That they sold the said property to accused no.4 under a registered sale deed dated 22.01.2013 and in that regard, accused no.4 made an attempt to take possession of the lands leading to the deceased Chandrashekharaiah attempting to commit suicide by consuming pesticide.
3. The case of the prosecution is, that on 07.08.2013 at about 11.15 a.m. the statement of respondent no.2 was recorded and on the basis of the said statement Crime No.247/2013 came to be registered by the respondent- Police for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 504, 143, 149, 309 IPC. That shortly thereafter, respondent no.2 passed away.
4. That respondent no.2 in his statement has stated that on the eventful day at about 8.00 a.m., the petitioners along with accused nos.3 to 5 assembled at the lands along with a tractor, and thereafter proceeded to utilize the tractor for destroying the standing crops. That when respondent no.2 attempted to prevent them, the accused abused him. It is alleged that as the accused failed to restrain themselves, the deceased consumed pesticide which was kept in the lands. That this act was reported to the nephews of the deceased one Naveen Kumar and Bharat Kumar S/o Basavaraj. They rushed to the spot and took the informant on the two wheeler to the Government Hospital at Tumakuru for treatment. The deceased has sought action against the persons who destroyed the crops. That respondent no.2 was later moved to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and he died on 17.08.2013 at about 5.40 a.m., on account of which the respondent-Police have registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with 34 IPC.
5. The case was registered on 18.01.2014. Later, in 2017, an application came to be moved invoking the provisions of Section 216(1) of Cr.PC. The Trial Court acting upon the application proceeds to allow the same and framed an additional charge for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC. In view of the same, the case has been committed to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, re-numbered as S.C.No.122/2017.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that they are totally innocent of the charges leveled against them and that they never visited the subject lands as they had sold the same in favour of accused no.4 vide registered sale deed and there being no subsisting right and interest in the said lands, there was no occasion for the said petitioners to be present and that the complaint is wholly false. Learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance on the statement of the witness one Naveen Kumar, wherein the said Naveen Kumar has stated that the petitioners were not present at the time of the incident.
7. Even as per the police report, the said Naveen Kumar is said to have arrived after the incident had occurred. Whether the petitioners were present at the time and place stated to by the deceased is a matter that requires to be adjudicated after trial. The mere statement of the witness cannot be treated as a gospel truth. That apart, this factual aspect is a matter that requires to be appreciated by the Trial Court in the course of appreciation of evidence. The defence or the merits and demerits of the defence of the accused cannot be the ground to premise an order allowing a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. Hence, no case is made out warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed without being admitted.
8. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made herein above.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR