IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2333/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DEEPAK S/O. SRI. N. SHIVALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. MISS. KAVITHA D/O. SRI. P.V. ANAND, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.13, SOMANATHA MUDALIAR STREET, VANNARPET LAYOUT, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 047. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIVEKNAGAR POLICE, REP. BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 056.
2. SRI. VIJAYANANDAN J.K.
S/O. LATE SRI. KUPPUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, VELLARIAMMAN TEMPLE STREET, VANNARPET, VIVEKANAGAR POST, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU-560 047.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: JANARDHANA G. ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.55260/2016 (CR.NO.388/2015) PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLIII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the records.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, would submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not make out the ingredients of offences under sections 341, 504, 323, 506 read with 34 of IPC insofar as petitioners are concerned and hence prosecution of petitioners for the alleged offences is illegal and abuse of process of court.
2. On going through the accusations made in the charge sheet and the material produced along with it, it is seen, material allegations are leveled against accused No.1 and not against accused No.2. According to prosecution, on the date of the incident on 10.12.2015 at about 5.30 p.m., when the complainant questioned accused No.1 taking photographs of the disputed property, accused No.1 abused and assaulted him and issued threats to his life. There is nothing in the charge sheet or complaint to indicate that accused No.2 had committed any of the above offences. As such, prosecution of accused No.2, in my view, is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the petition insofar as petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is concerned.
4. His submission is placed on record.
Accordingly, petition is allowed-in-part.
Petition filed by petitioner No.1/accused No.1 Sri.Deepak is dismissed as withdrawn.
Petition filed by petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.55260/2016 (Crime No.388/2015) pending on the file of XLIII ACMM, Bengaluru are quashed only insofar as petitioner No.2/accused No.2 Miss.Kavitha is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss.