IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8111/2017 BETWEEN:
1. K.S. SHANKAREGOWDA S/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A KALMANTIDODDI VILLAGE KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 446.
2. SHIVANNA K.S S/O SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A KALMANTIDODDI VILLAGE KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 446.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY KERAGODU POLICE STATION, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 446 BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. NAGARAJU P.L S/O LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS TEACHER,GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE KERAGODU, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 446.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.68/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 353, 443 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri Virupakshaiah, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Perusal of records would disclose that second respondent herein had lodged a complaint before first respondent alleging that petitioners had assaulted him on 14.09.2015. Said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.153/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 353, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.68/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. For quashing of said proceedings, petitioners are before this Court.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that complaint in question has been lodged by second respondent who is none other than employee of the petitioners’ school with an intention to wreck vengeance against petitioners for having proposed to initiate action against him. He would also submit that a complaint had also been filed by the petitioners before Superintendent of Police, Mandya District on 03.09.2015 itself and as a counter blast, complaint in question had been filed on 14.09.2015. He would also submit that no such incident had ever occurred and on false and frivolous grounds by imagining the alleged incident, complaint in question had been filed. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition and quashing of the proceedings.
4. Per contra, Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP would support the case of prosecution.
5. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records, it would clearly disclose that second respondent has alleged that he was assaulted by the petitioners and had sustained injuries. In fact, charge sheet material would disclose that complainant has been examined by the Government Doctor. As to whether there was actual assault by the petitioners and second respondent had sustained injury, if so, nature of injury, are all issues which will have to be thrashed out during the course of trial. While considering the prayer for quashing of proceedings, there cannot be any meticulous analysis of the charge sheet material. If the allegation made in the complaint would disclose alleged offence, it would suffice for this Court to refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. In this background, when complaint in question is examined, it would disclose the offences alleged against petitioners. Hence, there is no good ground to entertain this petition. Without expressing any opinion on merits, petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE *sp