IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3121 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. PARAMESHA S/O LATE CHANNAVEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. RAMESHA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. SATHYAPALA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 5. VISWANATHA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 6. NATESHA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 7. RAJANNA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT DODDANERALE VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571102.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BETTADAPURA POLICE STATION, PERIYAPATNA CIRCLE MYSURU, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001 2. SMT KUSUMA W/O SRI RAMEGOWDA C AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DODDANERALE VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571102.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.47/2018 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., PERIYAPATNA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143,147,148,504,323,324,341,354B,506, 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ‘ADMISSION’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Hareesh Bhandary.T, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondents.
2. No notice is issued to Respondent No.2 since this petition is being dismissed at the threshold for the reasons indicated herein below.
3. 2nd petitioner is said to have filed a suit against 2nd respondent-complainant in O.S.No.302/2016, wherein an order of temporary injunction is said to have been granted restraining complainant and her relatives from interfering with the possession of the property of 2nd petitioner vide Order dated 07.12.2016. For implementing said order, 2nd petitioner is said to have sought for police protection and on refusal, they have approached the Tahsildar, Periyapatna, who in turn had intimated the jurisdictional police to implement the same and it is contended that despite such request, jurisdictional Tahsildar has not issued any instructions to said police and respondent has not implemented the order of Civil Court and as such the 2nd petitioner is said to have lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and Commissioner of Police, South Division, Mysore. When this was the factual scenario, 2nd respondent herein is said to have lodged a complaint against petitioners alleging that while she along with her husband and children was grazing cattle in her agricultural land on 07.10.2017, petitioners had picked up a quarrel and assaulted them, which resulted in injuries being sustained by them. Said complaint came to be registered against petitioner herein in Crime No.250/2017 for the offences punishable u/s.504, 324, 506, 354(A), 327 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC and on completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.47/2018 for the offences punishable u/s.143, 147, 148, 114, 323, 324, 341, 354(B), 149 of IPC. Hence, petitioners are before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
4. Quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where complainant does not disclose any offence or it is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offence of which cognizance has been taken by a Magistrate, this Court would not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and quash such proceedings. It is also not necessary that a meticulous analysis of charge sheet material is to be conducted to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein that ingredients of the offences are disclosed, it would not call for quashing of such proceedings.
5. A perusal of the complaint in question would discloses that prima facie offences that are alleged against the petitioners exists. The correctness or otherwise of said allegations has to be decided only after trial Court. Hence, this Court finds no good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/