IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4961 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SRI.BALADEEP KUMAR S/O LATE GABRIEL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEW NO.315 (OLD NO.241) ULLASAPPA ROAD, KAMMANAHALLI, ST.THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE-560084 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: A. RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.KAMALA W/O RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2886 14TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010 2. STATE BY BANASAWADI POLICE STATION BANGALORE REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R2 R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED PENDING BEFORE THE XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.52902/2014 FILED AGAINST THIS PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 341,504,323,324, 506(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.52902/2014 registered for the offences punishable under sections 341, 504, 323, 324, 506(B) r/w 34 Indian Penal Code on the ground that the petitioner is not involved in the above incident and that the proceedings are initiated against the petitioner as a counterblast to the complaint filed by him against respondent No.2 and other accused for the offences punishable under sections 504, 143, 149, 448, 323, 354, 506(B) of Indian Penal Code.
2. The allegations in the charge sheet prima-facie make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that he is not involved in the above case is required to be substantiated only during trial. The investigating agency has collected necessary material in support of the charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the alleged incident as contended by him.
3. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioner that the instant proceedings is a counterblast to the complaint lodged by him would only indicate that either the incident has taken place as alleged by the prosecution or that the said counter case is a motive for the commission of the offences.
4. In the light of these facts and circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings. The contentions urged by the petitioner is a matter of defence which requires to be substantiated only during trial.
For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-