IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5432 OF 2013 Between:
Rame Gowda G.E., S/o Eriyappa, Aged 41 years, Opp. Junior College, Hosur Road, Malur – 583 130, Kolar District. …Petitioner (By Shri. K.S.N. Karanth, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka, By Malur Police, Kolar District, Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 1. …Respondent (By Shri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP) ---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.82/2013 on the file of the Prl. C.J. (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Malur, Kolar District registered by the respondent Masti Police for the offences P/U/S 171C and H of IPC.
This Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present application is filed in the background that the petitioner is accused of an offence punishable under Section 171-C and 171-H of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the footing that accused No.2 was found in custody of 90 sarees on the eve of elections at which the petitioner was contesting as an independent candidate and on the alleged confession of accused No.2, the present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences. It is contended that there is absolutely no connection made out between the offence alleged and the petitioner. In that there is no connection established between accused No.1 and accused No.2, except the alleged confession which cannot be relied upon to implicate the petitioner. It is however, strongly refuted by the learned State Public Prosecutor who would point out that this is a defence which is available to the petitioner, but he would have to stand trial and the case cannot be quashed on that ground alone. In any case the matter requires to be heard which cannot be in the near future. However, the one other reason for filing this application is that the petitioner is a businessman and frequently requires to travel or otherwise it would mean the ruination of his business. If that is so, it is open for the petitioner to seek appropriate permission from the court below which even the Passport Act contemplates as the Government of India has issued a Gazette Notification which does permit persons accused of offences and who are standing trial to seek permission to travel, vide Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993, which contemplates permission to depart from India on certain conditions. Therefore, it is quite possible for the petitioner to seek such permission. The offences alleged are non cognizable and possibly are vitiated for violation of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl