Karnataka High Court
Prashant S/O Chandrappa Kalangi vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 March, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRL.P No. 101842 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101842 OF 2021 (482-)
BETWEEN:
PRASHANT S/O CHANDRAPPA KALANGI
AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. WORKING IN AUTOLIV
COMPANY AT BENGALURU
NOW AT R/O SOGERI ENGINE SYSTEM
INDIA PVT. LTD, KASAVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
CARMELARAM POST, BENGALURU-560035.
DIST. BENGALURU 560035.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S S PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ADUR POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally
DHARWAD - 580007.
signed by
VN
BADIGER
VN Location:
BADIGER DHARWAD
Date:
2022.04.06
2. BASAVANNEPPA S/O CHANNAPPA
GULAPPANNANAVAR
17:25:33
+0530
AGE 48 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR,
R/O SHANKARIKOPPA,
TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI - 581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;,
R2- NOTICE SERVED)
-2-
CRL.P No. 101842 of 2021
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
CC NO.402/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 506,
504, 147, 148, 149, 143, 354, 323, 448, 324, 352, 354C OF
IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HANGAL PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J INSOFAR AS PETITIONER
IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Charge sheet is filed alleging that petitioner-accused No.6 along with other accused picked up a quarrel with respondent No.2 with regard to wooden pillar erected by respondent No.2 for the purpose of plastering and criminally trespassed into the house of respondent No.2 and abused CW5 and pulled her outside the house and accused No.1 and 2 assaulted her with their hands and when CW1 and CW4 came to the rescue of CW5, they were also assaulted by the accused by their hands and sticks. It is alleged that due to the assault, CW1 sustained injury on his right forearm, left ear and left palm. Further, accused No.1 bit the finger of CW4 and accused assaulted -3- CRL.P No. 101842 of 2021 CW5 with hands and sticks and abused them with filthy language. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 506, 504, 147, 148, 149, 143, 354, 323, 448, 324, 352, 354C of IPC. Taking exception to the same, petitioner-accused No.6 is before this Court.
2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that, except general and omnibus allegations made against petitioner-accused No.6, there is no specific allegation as against the petitioner-accused No.6 for having threatened the complainant witnesses and also assaulted them with hands and sticks. He further submits that as on the date of the incident, the petitioner-accused No.6 was not present and he was working in a company by name Autoliv company at Bengaluru, which is evident from certificate issued by the said company at Annexure-H. Hence, he submits that the petitioner-accused No.6 is falsely implicated in the case by respondent No.2 and his family members with ulterior motive.
-4-CRL.P No. 101842 of 2021
3. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-State would submit that the eyewitnesses to the incident have specifically stated about the involvement of the petitioner-accused No.6 in the incident. Hence, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner-accused No.6 cannot be faulted with.
4. Respondent No.2 though served with notice has remained absent.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Except general and omnibus allegations, there is no specific allegation as against the present petitioner- accused No.6 as to how and in what manner the petitioner-accused No.6 assaulted the complainant witnesses. In the absence of any specific allegations with regard to role of accused No.6 in the incident, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.6 merely on the basis of general and omnibus allegations -5- CRL.P No. 101842 of 2021 made in the first information report and also in the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses, is without any substance.
7. The petitioner has produced a letter of appointment and also a certificate issued by his employer wherein it is certified that the petitioner was working in the said company as on the date of the incident. The said documents having not been controverted or disputed by respondent No.2 by filing statement of objections and respondent No.2 having chosen not to appear before the Court, it clearly implies that the documents produced by the petitioner-accused No.6 are genuine and can be relied upon to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that he was not present at the spot as on the date of the alleged incident. Hence, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner, who was not present at the spot as on the date of incident is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
-6-CRL.P No. 101842 of 2021
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.402/ 2018 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hanagal insofar as it relates to present petitioner-accused No.6 is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN