IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2256 OF 2019 Between:
Nandeesha G.B., S/o. Basavaraju G.B., Aged about 37 years, Ganadaalu Village, Mandya Taluk and District – 571 401. …Petitioner (By Sri. Sanath Kumara K.M., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Srirangapatna Police Station, Srirangapatna, Mandya District.
By State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Nanjundaiah, S/o. Kengana Siddaiah, Aged about 70 years, Kadathnaalu Village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District – 571 405. ...Respondents (By Sri. Vinayaka V.S., HCGP for R1) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR bearing No.84/2019 registered in Cr.No.58/2019 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Srirangapatna registered on the basis of alleged complaint filed by the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 187 of IMV Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R In the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of FIR bearing No.84/2019 registered in Crime No.58/2019 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC at Srirangapatna for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
2. Complaint reveals the alleged offence stated to have been committed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s bike bearing No.KA-11-EG-7290 was not involved in the alleged accident. Hence, he has sought for quashing of FIR. That apart, it is contended that filing of FIR is belated by 73 days.
3. The delay in filing the complaint is on the score that the complainant and the petitioner/accused have entered into an oral agreement that petitioner would meet all those necessary expenditure towards medical treatment of the complainant and later on, the petitioner backed out. Thus, there is a delay in presenting the complaint. Merely contending that petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.KA-11-EG-7290 is not involved in the accident and there is a delay in filing the FIR on that score, the present petition cannot be entertained. Having regard to the alleged offence, it is a matter of trial. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2019 SC 847 held that if the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima-facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceedings shall not be interdicted.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM