IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRL.P.NO.3613 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
YOGEESHA S. PATIL, S/O SADASHIV PATIL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING OPPOSITE TO SUBBAIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE, PURLE, SHIMOGA-577 302.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETAN B. ANGADI, ADV., - ABSENT) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOLEHANNUR POLICE STATION, BADRAVATI, SHIMOGA, PIN CODE-577 302, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-01.
2. MR. MANMATHA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MUDALAVITTALAPURA VILLAGE, BADRAVATI, SHIMOGA, PIN CODE-577 302.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.03.2015 AND QUASH THE FIR AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.89/2015 (C.C.NO.3889/2015) REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. C.J & JMFC, BHADRAVATHI FOR THE OFFENCES REGISTERED U/Ss 457, 380 AND 411 OF IPC INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.8 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
i) To quash the complaint dated 26.03.2015 ii) To quash the FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.89/2015 (CC No.3889/2015) registered by the respondent No.1 i.e., State of Karnataka by Holehonnuru Police, on the file of I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC., Bhadravathi, for the offences registered under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC, insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused No.8.
iii) To quash the charge-sheet dated 08/07/2015 in Crime No.89/2015 (CC No.3889/2015) on the file of I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC., Bhadravathi, for the offences registered under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC.
2. The second respondent herein lodged a complaint on 26.03.2015, alleging that he had stored 147 bags of dry areca nut in a godown, out of which, 13 bags weighing about 9 Quintal 75 Kgs has been stolen by breaking open the shutters of the godown during the intervening night of 25/26.03.2015. Jurisdictional police registered a complaint in Crime No.89/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, materials have been collected, which prima-facie would indicate that the said goods have been sold by accused Nos.1 to 7 in favour of accused No.8. As such, charge-sheet has also been filed on conclusion of investigation.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated to wreck vengeance against him. There are no eyewitnesses to abovementioned act and based on circumstantial evidence only, prosecution is attempting to prove the guilt of the accused. As such, proceedings against petitioner may be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate would submit that Investigating Officer having found that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused has filed the charge-sheet against the accused and there are materials placed by prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, which will be established before trial court. As such, he would support initiation of proceedings against the petitioner and prays fro rejection of the petition.
5. While examining prayer for quashing of the proceedings, the probable defence that may be available or facts if stood established during the course of trial may lead to acquittal would not be grounds on which proceedings can be quashed at the threshold. At that stage, only consideration is, whether the averments made in the complaint would prima-facie attract the ingredients of the offences alleged or not? In this background, if the complaint in question is perused, it discloses prima-facie the offences alleged against petitioner and others. Therefore, correctness or otherwise of the charge- sheet material will have to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of issuance of summons, and that too in the instant case, when the charge- sheet has been filed by the jurisdictional police disclosing offences alleged, it would not be proper for this court to stifle the proceedings pending before trial court.
There are no good grounds to quash the proceedings. Hence, Criminal Petition is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Np/-