IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7028 OF 2015 BETWEEN :
1. NASITHARAM, MAJOR, S/O. SUBBU GOWDA, R/AT HOUSE NO.1-39, KANKAMAJALU P.O. AND VILLAGE, SULILA TALUK, D.K.-574214.
2. KISHORE KUMAR, MAJOR, S/O. NARAYANA GOWDA, R/AT N.H. 75, SHIRADY HOUSE & P.O. PUTTUR TALUK-574214.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: KARUNAKARA P., ADV.,) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. HAMMED B.K. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. ISMAIL B.K, R/AT KADIVINA BAGILU HOUSE, ILLANTHILA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK-574214, D.K. DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R-1, SRI. B. LETHIF, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.1518/2014 OF THE PUTTUR P.S., MANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B), 153, 153(A), 153(b), 504, 295(A), 506(2) R/W 34 OF IPC AND PENDING ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC PUTTUR D.K.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has approached this court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1518/2014, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and JMFC, Puttur for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 153, 153(A), 153(b), 504, 295(A), 506(2) R/W 34 OF IPC.
2. The brief factual aspects that emanates from the records are that the complainant one Mr. Hammed B.K. – the 2nd respondent herein has lodged FIR making allegations that the petitioners herein and others on 04.01.2012, at about 3.00 P.M. near Bus Stand at Uppinangady in Puttur Taluk have conducted a public Sabha and in the said Sabha, the petitioners and others have given a speech which are sufficient to provoke Muslim community and also sufficient to create differences between two communities and also they have created havoc amongst the two communities provoking them to commit several offences. It is also claimed that it affect the national integrity.
3. On the basis of the above said complaint, the learned Magistrate has referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 153 and 506(ii) of IPC. The jurisdiction police during the investigation, not only found the referred offences being committed by the petitioners, but also found that they have committed the offences under Sections 153A, 153B and 295A of IPC. Therefore they have taken sanction from the competent State Government and submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and left out the provisions under Section 120B and 153B of IPC.
4. Learned counsel has taken me through the statement of witnesses and also translated version of the speeches of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. On overall reading of the entire material on records, ofcourse there are some contradictions in the statement of the witnesses compare to the translated version of the speeches of petitioners No.1 and 2. In the statements of witnesses , there are certain materials with reference to the allegations of provocatory speech given by the petitioners including the allegations of abusing the Muslim community and also stating that Hindus are also having capacity to commit rape on Muslim ladies and that the Muslim persons are committing rape on their own community people inside their houses etc., 5. Apart from this, the complainant has also stated that as to how, in what manner the petitioners have used filthy language to abuse their community and as well as the threat given to the community people. At this stage, the court cannot appreciate materials on record nor consider any contradictions, omissions or differences in the statement of the witnesses, that has to be considered by the court either at the time of weighing the material on record for the purpose of framing charges or for the discharge of the accused or at the time of appreciation of evidence on record in the trial court.
6. It is fundamental basic principles of criminal jurisprudence that, when FIR and other Charge sheet materials show that the offence is made out and the some of the ingredients of some of the offences are available, normally the court should not interfere with the proceedings of the investigation or the trial court.
7. The court while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to prima-facie look into the allegations made in the complaint or the charge sheet papers and consider if they are taken on their face value, there is no constitution of any offence at all or else where. The Court can not conclusively draw the inference that, a false complaint has been lodged. If these two things are not available to the court, the court cannot exercise its discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to scuttle the legal proceedings.
8. As noted above, this court found that there are certain allegations made which are sufficient to constitute the offence as to whether they are sufficient to frame charges cannot be considered by the court at this stage. Hence, I am of the opinion without expressing anything with regard to the allegations made where they are sufficient to proceed to frame charges.
I am of the opinion, it is safe to leave it to the discretion of the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. Hence, the following order :
The petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are entitled to file necessary applications for the discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. in that eventuality, the trial court is hereby directed to provide an opportunity to the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE snc