IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.56795-56797 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI. HONNAPPA S/O LATE RAMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KANICHHAR HOUSE, ANILAKATTE, VITTLA POST, BANTWAL TALUK D K DISTRICT-574243 2. SRI GOPALAKRISHNA GOWDA S/O LATE RAMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KANICHHAR HOUSE, ANILAKATTE, VITTLA POST, BANTWAL TALUK D K DISTRICT-574243 3. SRI VASANTHA GOWDA S/O LATE RAMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KANICHHAR HOUSE, ANILAKATTE, VITTLA POST, BANTWAL TALUK D K DISTRICT-574243 (BY SRI. PRASANNA V. R., ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VITTALA POLICE STATION, ... PETITIONERS BANTWALA TALUK D K DISTRICT-574243 BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001 2. SRI VIVEKANANDA S/O LATE SHIVANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT KANICHHAR HOUSE ANILAKATTE, VITTLA POST, BANTWAL TALUK D K DISTRICT-574243 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWED WITH AN ORDER DATED 01.10.2018 IN CRIME NO.74/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Order Petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.74/2015 against whom FIR has been registered by Vittala Police Station for the offences punishable under 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, are before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records, it would disclose that on 10.05.2015 a dispute arose between the petitioners and the complainant - 2nd respondent herein, which resulted in altercation and subsequently complaints having been lodged by both the groups which resulted in Crime No.74/2015 being registered against the petitioners as aforesaid and against the complainant and three others in Crime No.75/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860.
3. Sri V. R. Prasanna, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners who are arraigned as accused in Crime No.74/2015, would vehemently contend that jurisdictional police having investigated the matter, had filed B-Report and subsequently learned Magistrate without examining the material documents placed along with B-Report, has mechanically and without judicious application of mind, issued process to the petitioners and B-Report filed along with the materials supporting the same, would itself disclose that there is absolutely no overt act committed by the petitioners for being tried and as such, if petitioners are directed to undergo the ordeal of trial, it would be onerous and it would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra learned HCGP would support the initiation of the prosecution against petitioners by referring to statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant which was in support of objections filed to B-Report, namely to the protest memo. Hence, he prays for rejection of the petition.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records in general, and FIR registered in Crime No.74/2015 in particular, it would clearly indicate that 2nd respondent herein had suffered injuries due to the overt acts committed by the petitioner and according to the learned Magistrate, this had been overlooked by the investigating agency and as such he permitted the complainant to get himself examined and sworn statement of the complainant as well as his witnesses came to be recorded which was perused and found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners who are accused in Crime No.74/2015. Hence, has issued process to the petitioners. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 would not evaluate the evidence of the prosecution or the probable defense that petitioners- accused may put forth during the course of trial. Such an exercise would be alien to the present proceedings. It is also a fact that the dispute between the two groups having taken place on 10.05.2015 has resulted in complaint and counter complaint being lodged, which has also resulted in two FIRs being registered as aforestated. Hence, any opinion expressed by this Court with regard to the material collected by the Investigating officer would definitely prejudice the rights of either of the parties. Hence, without expressing any opinion and holding that it is a matter which will have to be thrashed out after full-fledged trial, this petition stands dismissed.
6. Learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
Sd/- JUDGE RD