IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3088 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. SHRI VENKATESH S/O N GANESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. SMT.YELARASI W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. SMT.RANGANAYAKI W/O KASHINATH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A NO.1077/1, APPAYANNA CROSS, OPP.TO GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, YELAHANAKA, BENGALURU-560064 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: G RAMANA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560064 2. SHRI. N GANESH S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMI,.
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/A NO.1077/1, APPAYANNA CROSS, OPP.TO GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, YELAHANAKA, BENGALURU-560064 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.19108/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 44TH A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
2. Charge sheet is laid against the petitioners under Sections 448, 504, 323, 341, 506, 427 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.5.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., the petitioners herein trespassed into the house of CW1, assaulted and abused CW1 and CW4 and also damaged the window glasses and caused loss to CWs 1 and 4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint; the material produced by the prosecution does not prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences. Petitioners themselves have lodged a complaint against CWs 1 & 4 on 18.5.2016. Investigation is in progress in the said complaint whereas, in the instant case, yielding to the pressure of respondent No.2, false charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners and hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional SPP has argued in support of the impugned action and contending that the material produced by the prosecution prima facie make out the offences alleged in the charge sheet and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the charge sheet papers and the documents produced in support thereof, I find that the allegations made in the charge sheet as well the material produced in support thereof, prima facie make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners, as such, I do not find any reason to quash the proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek discharge before the Trial court on such grounds available under law.
Sd/- JUDGE rs