Sharath. T vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2020

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sharath. T vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2020

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

                                     Crl.P.No.7640/2020
                             1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7640/2020


BETWEEN:

1.    SHARATH T
      S/O TIPPESWAMI,
      AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
      R/AT NO.786/13-14,
      DHM CHURCH ROAD,
      SHARASWATI NAGAR,
      DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
      DAVANAGERE-577 002.

2.    VINAY ALIAS BODA @ VIJI @ OHM @ ENGLISH
      S/O RAJASHEKHARAPPA,
      AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
      R/AT BEHIND, DHM CHURCH ROAD,
      JAYANAGAR, D BLOCK DAVANAGERE,
      DAVANAGERE-577 002.

3.    BHARATH
      S/O TIPPESWAMI,
      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
      PRESENT ADDRESS
      R/AT NO.786/13-14,
      DHM CHURCH ROAD,
      SHARASWATI NAGAR,
      DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
      DAVANAGERE-577 002.
                                        Crl.P.No.7640/2020
                            2



       PERMANENT ADDRESS
       R/AT GOUDIHALLY VILLAGE,
       RAMAGIRI HOBLI,
       HOLALKERE TALUK,
       CHITRADURGA-577 501.

4.     NAGARAJA Y.B. @ NAGARAJ ERAGUNTE
       S/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
       R/AT KAKKARAGOLLA VILLAGE,
       DAVANAGERE TALUK,
       DAVANAGERE-577 502.

5.     VENKATESH
       S/O RAVI V.,
       AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
       SECRETARY GRAMA
       PANCHAYATH CHIRADONI,
       CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
       DAVANAGERE-577 502.
                                    ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.HARISH KUMAR H.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY HONNALLI P.S.,
       REP.BY SPP,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BANGALORE-560 010.

2.     PRAVEEN KUMAR
       S/O HUCCHAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
       R/O MPW BELIMALLURU VILLAGE,
       HONNALLI TALUK,
       DAVANAGERE-577 502.
                                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
                                              Crl.P.No.7640/2020
                                  3



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE      PROCEEDINGS      IN    C.C.NO.241/2017
(CR.NO.283/2015) OF RESPONDENT HONNALI P.S.,
DAVANAGERE WHICH IS REGISTERED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1, 3, 4, 5, 7 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 504, 506, 384, 323, 34 OF IPC
WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, HONNALI AT DAVANAGERE
DISTRICT IN C.C.NO.241/2017 AND ETC.,

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.241/2017 arising out of Crime No.283/2015 registered by Honnali Police Station, Davanagere, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 384, 363, 323, 34 of IPC now pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC-3 Court, Honnali, Davanagere District.

2. A complaint came to be filed on 24.10.2015 alleging the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and other accused persons, wherein it is stated that the Crl.P.No.7640/2020 4 petitioners and others had kidnapped the brother of the complainant and taken him to an undisclosed location. Thereafter, they made the brother of the complainant to call his wife to send two blank cheques through the complainant. Hence, the complainant bought two cheques, he was also assaulted and in his presence, cheques were got signed from his brother and also signature obtained on the blank papers.

3. On investigation being complete, charge sheet has been laid on 30.01.2017 against the petitioners and others, wherein the witnesses namely C.Ws.9, 11, 12 and 13 have supported the complainant and deposed against the petitioners.

4. Sri.Harish Kumar H.C., learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complaint has been filed on account of a disputed business transaction between C.W.9 and petitioner No.1 and the complaint has been filed only to get over the transaction entered into between them.

Crl.P.No.7640/2020

5. A perusal of the complaint, charge sheet and the witness statement refer to the incident aforestated namely kidnapping, assault and intimidation by the petitioners to the complainant and C.W.9 as also the fact that getting blank cheques and blank papers signed, at this stage, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are factual in nature and after the charge sheet has been laid implicating the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If at all any business transaction and if at all there are any defences arising from the same can be agitated by the petitioners during the course of trial. This Court cannot give a finding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as regard the veracity and truthfulness of any fact, the same has to be established during trial.

6. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to urge their defences before the trial Court, petition is dismissed. Crl.P.No.7640/2020 6

7. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 for stay does not survive for consideration and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE PB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court