IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. No.7003/2017 BETWEEN 1. SRI. MANJUNATH S., S/O. LATE. SUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT C/O. JAYARAM’S, RENTAL HOME, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR NAYANDANAHALLI STAND, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU 560039 2. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 32, R/AT NO.32, 2ND CROSS SANNAKKAI BAILU, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 079 3. SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O SUNDARA SHERIGAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT 2ND CROSS, MASJID ROAD, DEEPANJALINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 039 4. SRI. SURESH, S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.06, MARUTHINAGAR, CHANDRALAYOUT, BENGALURU – 40 5. SRI. RAVIKUMAR, S/O KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AT KALYANI MOTORS, NAYANDANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 039.
6. SRI. RAMESH, S/O DEVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SECURITY GUARD, WORKING AT KALYANI MOTORS, NAYANDANAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 039 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJA H. R., ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-40.
2. SRI. M. KUMAR, S/O. MANIKAAM C., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.4/27, KUDIANAYA STREET, TARAPURAM OMALURU TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT – 636455 TAMILNADU STATE. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN C.C.NO.4248/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-A WHICH IS FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-POLICE, WHICH IS PENDING FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE XLV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METORPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN SO FOR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION A/W IA NO.1/2017 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Perused records.
2. Respondent No.1-police have registered a case in C.C. 4248/2007 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 435, 120(B) r/w. 149 of IPC and also under Section 2(a) of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contends that, there is no names of these petitions in the FIR. But subsequently, their names have been added. He also contends that, they are workers in a company and at that particular point of time, they are working inside the company premises and there was no chances of they coming out from the Company and commit such offences.
4. The said factual aspects have to be thrashed out after going through the entire charge sheet papers and also considering the statement of witnesses and that can only be done by the trial Court at the time of hearing, before framing of charges.
5. Under the above circumstances, as the allegations made in the charge sheet implicating the accused persons and also there are certain allegations which constitute some offences, it is not proper on the part of this court to quash said proceedings. However, the materials available on record can be weighed by the trial Court at the time of hearing the petitioners before framing of charges. Hence, it is just and proper to grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial Court by making proper application for their discharge. In case, if such an application is filed before the trial Court, it shall provide reasonable opportunity to the parties on both sides and to pass appropriate orders on the application, in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.
In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*