IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3916/2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI P S ESHWARAIAH SON OF SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT PATTANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIRA TLAUK – 572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. SRI. P.C. ESHWAR SON OF CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION, RESIDING AT PATTANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK – 572 137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3. SRI. RUDRI @ ESPIT RUDRI SON OF THIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT PATTANAYAKANAHALLI VILALGE, SIRA TALUK - 572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
4. SRI. PARAMESH @ PARAMI SON OF REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT PATTANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK - 572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5. SRI. REVANNA SON OF CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT PATTANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK - 572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
6. SRI. BUTHESHA SON OF SRIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT PATTNAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK - 572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P. M., ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PATTANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE, PATTANAYAKANAHALLI, SIRA TALUK - 572137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.540/2015 BY ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, TUMKUR, AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE CRL.P. WITH EXTEMPORARY COST ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP – II.
2. In this petition, petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.540/2015 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira Taluk, Tumkur, mainly on the ground that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not prima facie make out the offences punishable under Sections 186 and 189 of IPC.
3. On perusal of the charge sheet, the specific allegations contained therein are that, on 14.10.2013, when CW.1 was posted on ‘bandobast’ duty, the petitioners are alleged to have obstructed CW.1 in the discharge of his duty and also abused him and issued threats of injuries. These allegations in my view squarely attract the ingredients of Sections 186 and 189 of IPC.
4. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any good ground to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek discharge on such grounds available under law.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj