IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3504 OF 2017 Between:
Sri.Manju @ Manjunath, S/o Kanakappa, Aged about 33 years R/at Veerasandra Village, Electronic City Post, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District-560 116 …Petitioner (By Sri. Ramesh Gowda A, Advocate) And:
1. State by Anekal Police Station, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District-560 107.
2. Sub Inspector of Police, Anekal Police Station, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District-560 107.
… Respondents (By Sri.S.Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.133/2014 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard Sri.Ramesh Gowda A, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State.
2. On 16/17.07.2013, when informant along with others was on night patrolling duty at about 4.45 am they intercepted motor cycles bearing Registration No.KA-04-G-635 and Motor cycle KA-04-G-257 proceeding in Anekal town, Bannerghatta Road, towards Anekal and on being enquired, they are said to have thrown the bags, which they were carrying and on examining the same, it was found there was three idols of Bronze, Pacche Kallu(Emerald) and one Ganesha Idol(Pacche Kallu). On the ground that it has been stolen or handed over by Mr.Sendhil for being sold, accused persons came to be apprehended and F.I.R has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC by Anekal Police and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Section 98 of The Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Hence, sole accused is before this Court for quashing of the said proceedings.
3. It is the contention of Sri.Ramesh Gowda A, learned counsel for petitioner that on the basis of the statement made by the accused, the prosecution has been initiated against petitioner by invoking Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. He has further submitted that it must be established by the prosecution at the first instance itself that there is a reason to believe that same is a stolen property or property fraudulently obtained and by referring to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. P.GOPALAKRISHNA PANIKAR reported in ILR 1991 OF KAR 1539 is seeking for quashing of said proceedings.
4. Per Contra, Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent would support filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner and submits that not only on the basis of the statement made by the accused but also charge sheet material itself is sufficient for prosecution to proceed against the accused under Section 98 of The Karnataka Police Act. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of records it would clearly indicate that specific allegation has been made that petitioner was carrying the stolen property and the property had been given by Mr.Sendhil for being sold to a third parties. At the time of considering the prayer for quashing of proceedings, enquiry or holding of mini-trial and probable defense the accused may raise during trial would also not be a subject matter of consideration. If the charge sheet material prima facie establishes that there are allegations which are triable, that would suffice to allow the prosecution to reach its logical end. In the instant case, charge sheet material would disclose there is sufficient material for invoking Section 98 of The Karnataka Police Act and as such, contention raised by counsel appearing for petitioner cannot be accepted and judgment relied upon by the learned counsel was in the background of a criminal appeal after full fledged trial and Division Bench had the benefit of evidence available before it to examine as to whether there was allegation of idols having been stolen in the charge sheet material and plea of the prosecution was considered in the background of evidence. Such material not being available before this Court or in other words, trial is yet to be commenced, question of granting benefit to the petitioner-accused, that too, when some material is placed by the prosecution would not be appropriate and it would be opposed to the interest of justice.
Hence, I find no good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of main petition, IA.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.1/2017 is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ag