IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4262 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI H NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE DANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O ANAGODU VILLAGE - 577 003 DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI REVANASIDDAPPA S/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A ANAGODU VILLAGE, - 577 003 DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE BY DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R2; R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1518/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE 1st JMFC, DAVANAGERE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 323, 420, 448, 468, 404, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, REGISTERED ON THE COMPLAINT OF R-1 DATED 07.10.2013, IN P.C.R.NO.03/2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented.
2. The petitioner is A2 in the charge sheet filed under Sections. 323, 420, 448, 468, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC in C.C.No.1518/2014.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that allegations made in the charge sheet do not disclose involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. From the charge sheet it is not clear as to the manner in which the petitioner committed the above offences. Merely on the ground that the petitioner was the President of the Grama Panchayath, he has been implicated in the alleged offence without there being any prima facie material to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offences and hence he seeks to quash the entire proceedings.
4. Learned HCGP is unable to point out specific accusations against the petitioner. However, on going through the charge sheet he submitted that allegations against the petitioner is that he trespassed into the property of the complainant in site No.703 on the date of the incident.
5. The case of the prosecution is that alleged trespass was made by A1 and not by present petitioner. The only allegation made in charge sheet against the petitioner is that he (A2) with the help of A3 and A4 fabricated the khata certificate relating to site No.703. But the entire charge sheet does not contain any material to show that the said khata certificate was fabricated by the present petitioner. Witnesses examined by prosecution have merely stated that petitioner herein trespassed into the property on the date of the incident. This statement is inconsistent to the case set up by the prosecution making it evident that without any basis and without any evidence, the petitioner herein has been implicated in the alleged offence which is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. Charge sheet laid in C.C.No.1518/2014 is quashed only insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE rs