IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.208/2018 BETWEEN:
1 RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI S/O LATE B.CHANNAIAH AGED 33 YEARS R/AT GRB LAYOUT NEAR FAIR PRICE DEPOT KERE GUDDADAHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA POST BANGALORE 560 090 2 NAVEENKUMAR B.C.
S/O CHANNAKESHAVA MURTHY N AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.378, NEAR GANGAMMA TEMLE, CHIKKABANAVARA POST BANGALORE 560 090 3 BHARATH D S/O DAMODAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT JMM SCHOOL NEAR ACHARYA COLLEGE GANAPATHINAGARA CHIKKABANAVARA BANGALORE 560 090 4 UMESH D.S S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.2, JAMIA MASJID ROAD PANCHAYATI OFFICE STREET CHIKKABANAVARA BANGALORE 560 090 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C R RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BANGALORE – 01 2 RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MARISHESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.7, 1ST CROSS KEREGUDDADAHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA BANGALORE 560 090 ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL C.C.NO.362/2017 (IN CRIME NO.153/2017) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 504, 307 R/W 149 IPC AND 3(1)(10) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES) ACT OF SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard C.R. Raghavendra Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondents.
2. Petitioners are arraigned as accused in Spl.C.No.362/2017 arising out of Crime No.153/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 504, 307 r/w Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act by Soladevanahalli Police Station which proceedings are pending before II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District seeking for quashing of said proceedings.
3. It is the contention Sri. C.R. Raghavendra Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that proceedings in question is initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by second respondent who with an intention to wreck vengeance against first petitioner particularly, first petitioner had contested for the Karnataka Pradesh Youth Congress Election from Dasarahalli Constituency for the post of president and only with a malafide intention to humiliate him, a false complaint came to be lodged. He would draw the attention of the Court to the allegations made in the complaint with reference to the medical records to contend that there is inconsistency at large and as such, version of the complainant cannot be believed and as such, petitioners cannot be made to undergo the ordeal of trial. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the proceedings.
4. Per contra, Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State submits that after completion of investigation and recording statement of witnesses, it would emerge there from that statements of independent witnesses would disclose attack on the complainant by petitioners who was also abused the complainant by taking name of his caste. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. At the outset, it is to be noticed that accused No. 2 belongs to Adi Karnataka which is classified as Scheduled Caste and as such proviso to Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 is not attracted and to said extent, second petitioner -Accused No.2 is entitled to succeed in this petition. However, insofar as the alleged inconsistencies in the stand of the complainant is concerned, is an issue which will have to be thrashed out during trial and petitioners can make use of such inconsistencies to establish their defence. This Court while examining the plea for exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction would not scrutinize such probable defence particularly when the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution are yet to be examined.
6. The charge sheet material prima facie would indicate the offences alleged and as such after full fledged trial, learned Magistrate may have to examine as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. At this juncture, proceedings cannot be quashed since independent witnesses have reiterated the incident that occurred on 08.05.2017 at about 10.00 p.m. involving the petitioners. Hence, it is for the trial Court to take note of the these aspects while taking into consideration the plea of defence. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that contention of petitioners with regard to quashing of the proceedings against them as canvassed by the learned Advocate appearing for petitioners cannot be accepted and it is stands rejected.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Criminal petition is allowed in part.
(2) Proceedings pending against second petitioner in Spl.C.No.362/2017 (Crime No.153/2017) insofar as offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, stands quashed and second petitioner is acquitted of the said offence only.
(3) It is made clear that all the petitioners would face the trial for the other offences alleged in the charge sheet.
(4) However, no opinion is expressed on merits of the case.
SD/- JUDGE RU