IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5807/2014 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Sachchidananda Chatra, S/o. Late Govinda Chatra, Aged about 65 years, R/at Shettypalu, Hallihole Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 201.
2. Sri. Sharath Naik @ Putta Naik, S/o. Kushata Naik, Aged about 30 years, R/at Bachuguli, Hallihole Village, Kundapura Taluk, Ududpi District – 576 219.
3. Sri. Rajendra Naik, S/o. Venkataramaniah, Aged about 46 years, R/at Agasarapalu, Hallihole Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 219.
4. Sri. Venkataramana Rao, S/o. Ramakrishana Rao, Aged about 56 years, R/at Badamane, Kamala Shile (V), Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 219.
5. Sri. Irige Krishana Murthy, S/o. Shankaranarayana, Aged about 52 years, R/at Kamala Shile Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 219.
6. Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty, S/o. Tejappa Shetty, Aged about 59 years, R/at Honnabailu, Siddhapura Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 219.
7. Sri. Balachandra Bhat, Aged about 38 years, S/o. Suryanarayan Bhat, R/at Agrahara, Ajrihara Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 219. …Petitioners (By Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate (Absent)) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Station House Officer, Shankarnarayana Police Station, Kundapura, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Sri. Nagabhushan Bhat, S/o. Padmanabha Bhat, Ajri Village, Kamalashele Post, Kundapura, Udupi – 576 218. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1; Smt. Neeraja Karanth, Advocate for Sri. K. Shrihari, Advocate for R2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to allow the petition and quash the entire proceedings registered against the petitioners in C.C.No.2981/2013 (Cr.No.96/2012) on the file of the Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kundapura, registered for the offences p/u/s 143, 323 read with 149 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.
2. The petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings registered against the petitioners in C.C.No.2981/2013 (Cr.No.96/2012) on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kundapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323 read with 149 of IPC.
3. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 323 read with 149 of IPC. It was registered in Crime No.96/2012. After detailed investigation, Shankaranarayana Police submitted a ‘B’ Report to the Court. The complainant filed his objections and examined himself before the Magistrate. Considering the said material, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the petitioners. At this stage, petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings contending that petitioners are falsely implicated in the alleged offences and that the allegations made in the complaint and in the Sworn Statement do not make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against them. Further, it is contended that one Sharathchandra Naik has filed a complaint against the complainant/2nd respondent in Crime No.95/2012 and the instant complaint is a counter blast to the said complaint.
4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that based on the material produced by the Investigating Agency, the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioners for the above offences. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the prosecution of the petitioners is baseless and malafide cannot be accepted. Further, she submits that all the material witnesses cited in the charge-sheet are examined before the trial court and trial is at the fag end and therefore, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
5. On considering the above submissions and on going through the allegations made in the complaint and sworn statement of the petitioners which are sought to be substantiated through the statement of the material witnesses, the contention of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offences and there is no prima-facie material to substantiate the charge-sheet cannot be accepted. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to quash the proceedings. As a result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV/-