IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.219/2019 BETWEEN:
RAVI @ LOKESHA S/O KRISHNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BUSINESS, R/O THALANJIMANE BADAGANNUR, PUTTUR TALUK SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT - 574 201.
(BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY BANAKAL POLICE STATION, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT REP: S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. H.B. ANNAPPA S/O BOBAYYA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT HEBBRIGE VILLAGE BANAKAL HOBLI MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.7/2015 NOW NEW SPLIT UP C.C.NO.556/2018 (OLD SPLIT UP C.C.NO.502/2016) PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MUDIGERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B), 143, 147, 447, 448, 506, 347 AND 398 R/W 149 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.8 in S.C.No.89/2016 is before this Court for quashing of split up charge sheet filed in C.C.No.556/2018 (arising out of Crime No.7/2015) registered by the Banakal Police Station, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 143, 147, 447, 448, 323, 506, 347 and 398 r/w Section 149 IPC.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.
H.P.Leeladhar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent. Notice to respondent No.2 stands dispensed with, since Sri. H.B.Annappa who was examined as C.W.1 (P.W.1) had turned hostile before trial Court.
3. Case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2015 Sriyuths Sandeep B.M and H.N. Poornesh and other 3 to 4 persons came near the house of second respondent i.e., P.W.1 and tied him and his wife with rope and threatened them with choppers and demanded that they should disclose the place where the amount which was thrown by accused persons during the election period had been kept. It is also the case of prosecution that P.W.1 told the accused persons that he had kept the amount in the estate of Sri. Nagesh Gowda and he took accused persons to said house and despite search made in the estate, they could not get the amount and as such, accused persons assaulted second respondent with hand. Hence, he had sought for suitable action being taken against accused persons and had lodged a complaint on 17.01.2015, which was registered in Crime No.7/2015 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.502/2016 and committal order came to be passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, which had resulted in S.C.No.89/2016 being registered.
4. Since petitioner–accused No.8 and accused No.9 did not appear before learned Sessions Judge, split up charge sheet was ordered to be filed against them. However, trial came to be proceeded against Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 30.06.2018 acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 7 after having found them not guilty of the offence alleged and also by recording a finding that there is no evidence to show that accused persons had committed the offence alleged. In fact complainant (C.W.1) who was examined as P.W.1 had stated that he knew accused No.1- H.N. Poornesh and did not know about other accused and complainant -P.W.1 had turned hostile and during cross-examination of P.W.1 by prosecution also nothing worthwhile had been elicited as recorded by learned trial Judge and as such it came to held that prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Petitioner herein who had been arraigned as accused No.8 stand on the same footing as that of accused Nos. 1 to 7. When accused Nos. 1 to 7 have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, continuation of proceedings against present petitioner – accused No.8 as rightly contended by Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned Advocate appearing of petitioner would not only be onerous but also no fruitful purpose would be served by taking the case forward. Even if the charge sheet material is taken to its logical end by conducting trial, no fruitful purpose would be served, since prosecution witnesses who have been examined had already turned hostile while trial was conducted against accused Nos. 1 to 7 and they have not supported the case of prosecution or in other words, their evidence having not been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. Taking into consideration that petitioner against whom split up charge sheet in C.C.No.556/2018 has been filed, has already surrendered himself before jurisdictional Court and the fact his name did not appear in FIR, has also swayed the mind of the Court to grant the prayer sought for in this petition.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioner in C.C.No.556/2018 (old C.C.No.502/2016) (Crime No.7/15) registered by the Banakal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 143, 147, 447, 448, 323, 506, 347 and 398 r/w Section 149 IPC on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere, Chikkamagaluru District, stands quashed and petitioner is acquitted of the afore said offences.
In view of petition having been allowed, I.A.No.1/19 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE RU