IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8762/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SHRI RAMESH B S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCCUPATION: MECHANICAL ENGINEER NO.131, BLOCK NO.10 STRIKE APARTMENT KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BANGALORE-560 060 2. SHRI BASAVARAJAPPA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AT: MAKOPPA, POST: JADE, TALUK: SORAB DISTRICT: SHIMOGA-577 419 3. SHRI RAJAPPA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICUTLURE AT: MAKOPPA, POST: JADE, TALUK: SORAB DISTRICT: SHIMOGA-577 419 4. SHRI PRADEEP R. S/O. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS OCCUPATION: STUDENT AT: MAKOPPA, POST: JADE, TALUK: SORAB DISTRICT SHIMOGA-577 419 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA B. HANJER, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY:
THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR (PSI) ANAVATTI POLICE STATION ANAVATTI, SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-477 413 2. SHRI SHIVAPUTRAPPA OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR (ASI) ANAVATTI POLICE STATION ANAVATTI, SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-477 413 3. SHRI PRAHLADA OCCUPATION: POLICE HEAD CONSTABLE-606 ANAVATTI POLICE STATION ANAVATTI, SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-477 413 4. SHRI MUDUPANNA S/O. PAKKIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT HANAJI VILLAGE JADE POST, SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 419 5. SHRI RANGANATH OCCUPATION: POLICE CONSTABLE ANAVATTI POLICE STATION ANAVATTI, SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-477 413 6. SHRI ASHOKA OCCUPATION: POLICE CONSTABLE-1545 ANAVATTI POLICE STATION ANAVATTI, SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-477 413 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. READ WITH SECTION 5 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS, 1961 ACT PRAYING QUASH THE FIR NO.206/2017 DATED 06.08.2017 IN CRIME 158/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BASED ON THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioners sought for permission to withdraw the petition contending that in the present petition, registration of FIR in Crime No.158/2017 had been questioned and subsequently, charge sheet came to be filed by taking cognizance of offence by the learned trial Judge as such petitioners have challenged the same in WP.Nos.41226-41230/2018 which came to be disposed of on 15.10.2018 and by oversight, he could not file a memo for withdrawal of the above criminal petition. Hence, he has prayed for permission to withdraw petition.
2. As could be seen from the case papers of both the cases, the present criminal petition was filed on 07.11.2017 and WP.Nos.41226-41230/2018 came to be filed on 15.09.2018. As could be seen from the cause title of both the petitions, accused persons are one and the same. In fact accused No.5 in Crime No.158/2017 who had challenged filing of charge sheet in WP.Nos.41226- 41230/2018 was first petitioner therein and he is not a party in the present criminal petition. However, he is appearing as a learned Counsel and also appearing on behalf of the other accused persons namely, accused Nos.1 to 4. Thus, knowing fully well that accused Nos.1 to 4 had challenged the registration of FIR in Crime No.158/2017 and without disclosing this fact had filed petition in WP.Nos.41226-41230/2018 wherein accused Nos.1 to 4 are petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and nowhere in the entire petition, whisper is made with regard to filing of earlier petition i.e.Crl.P.No.8762/2017. This would only indicate that petitioners somehow intended to snatch an order from this Court by trick and stratagem. This conduct cannot be appreciated and requires to be deprecated in strong words. Though learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in this petition, who is accused No.5 has submitted that it was unintentional, fact remains that there has been suppression of fact. This Court was initially inclined to impose exemplary cost on the petitioners. Considering the fact that remorse is expressed by the learned Counsel (who is accused No.5) and with a strict warning that such incident should not occur in future and accepting the unconditional apology tendered by filing an affidavit, memo for withdrawal is allowed. Petitioners are permitted to withdraw the petition and accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
SD/-
JUDGE LB