IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Criminal Petition No.4620 of 2016 BETWEEN:
SMT.KOMALA A.G., D/O JAVARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ANKAPURA, KATTAYA HOBBLI, HASSAN – 573 120.
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HASSAN EXTN. POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT.
THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. SRI.S.B.GIRISH, S/O LATE S.M.BASAVEGOWDA, R/AT KARIGOWDA COLONY, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201. WORKING AT KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.396/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 468, 471, 419 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.396/2015. He is facing accusations of creating fake student passes for travelling in KSRTC buses.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint is ulteriorly motivated and is filed out of spite to wreck vengeance against the petitioner as the petitioner had lodged a complaint against one Raghu for his misbehaviour with the petitioner as evidenced in the endorsement issued by the Managing Director of KSRTC as well as the endorsement dated 10/12.12.2012 to the effect that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the aforesaid Raghu based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner was not travelling in the bus at the time of the alleged seizure and in support there of he has referred to the certificate issued by the employer of the petitioner. Further he submitted that the information obtained by the petitioner from RTI discloses that the KSRTC did not seize any fake passes during the years 2010 to 2013 and hence the material collected by the respondent No.2 is patently false and unreliable. On these grounds the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings.
3. I am unable to accept to the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The documents relied on by the petitioner require to be considered only during the trial. The contentions urged by the petitioner are in the nature of defence which requires to be substantiated in the course of trial. The materials collected by the investing agency prima facie make out the ingredients of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet. Therefore I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings on the purported contentions set out by the petitioner. As a result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Judge RD