Karnataka High Court
Sri. Arjun Belmar vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2010
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE':: '»a.
DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER
BEFORE
THE HON'B1_E MR. JUSTICE C.R. :E{{§v£VEAR.A'S_W~;A§*}I:$"»'--_u._ ':V" F.
CRIMINAL PETITION ;s1o.4Se59'/2x010 . . "
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Arjun Belmar,
S/o ELK. Narayanarao, _ ._
Aged about 40 years, ' <
Residing at No.1, Belmar Estate'; V
Nagasandra Post, _,
Bangalore--S6O _. _
2. Sri. Abishek Be--!..m':a'f;'fg;,;..
S/o B.K. I\jaray'aAnarvao,1"§V ' "
Aged about 2S'yea'rs',"~-._" ' -
Residing at'-E\l0.~1, Be|ma~r_Esta'te,~
Nagasandra Post, V V' "
Bangalor_e_~560 073. V _
3;" _N'agar-ai"'B;,.T,., A. """ "
"S/0 G...P. T_hImma--i.ah,
Indiana, "Maj'0.r; ~ " ,
Resid ihgg « at' 11;3__8;.'V_A',"
Vidya' Nagar, E
T. Dasafahaili, "V
--4%.[."_j:...Na.gasandra 'Post,
Ba.nga!Qre«S60 073.
.'_gNa'raVS'irh'hamurthy,
«S:/o H.Ranganna,
--.IVnd'ian, Major,
A»._P.esiding at No.103A,
E'!/'
:7»:i"*r--proceedi'n_gs intcgc, 'i:\:io.27S19/2009 pending on the file of the 7*'
_F£\_dci'i.tionaI Chief Metropoiitan Magistrate, Bangaiore.
"'i:'Thi_s'."Criminai Petition is coming on for admission this day
"."V.V:t'h-"e'VCOtVJ':rt made the foiiowing:
Ranganatha Nilayam,
Rukmini Nagar,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore--56O O73. Petitioners
(By Sri. 3. John Bosco & Associates, Advocates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By Peenya Police Station,
Represented by its
S.P.P. High Court,
Bangaiore.
2. CM. Nagaraj,
S/o late Muniappa,
Indian, Major,
M.S.K. Enterprises,"
Basavanagudi
Chikkasandra,__ -' 'V ' 4' "
T.Dasarah'ai|i,-_ ' . .,
Bangalore~'?3. 4. -- Respondents
(Sri. Sathish R. <3ii"'r;*i,V_"i-iigi,-i C'o_u'r't"iV<3overnment Pieader for R1)
Cri'rniyna'|"~..Petition is filed under Section--482 of the
Code"---ovfjCriniinaitT-Procedure praying to quash the entire
6/
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section--482 of---___the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the'.":'e.ng:tig:re.. proceedings in C.C. No.27S19/2009 pending on the "
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,V-B'a'rigaloi%e.
2. I have heard the teamed counsel forthe'=petiti'onef3._as;_e well as the learned High Court f3o\£ernrne.nt P|e=a;d'ej'v..,f_or respondent -- State. Learned High Pieadler. produced the case diary and I have peru.s.e'd_ the
3. The are as under:
3.1 That loaned presented a complaint before thVev..Peenyat.l§o'i'ice StatEon_____and on the basis of that complaint Crilrne» l§E'o».209:g'2.00.§*was registered against Arjun Belmar, his 7*C,_Abrothe"r'--a.nd' o.the"rs the offences punishable under Sections CCCI323,324,'ii"So4d,_1i4la, 147, 148, 307, 506(8) read with Section-
; lint-l_i'anVV"Penal Code and under Section--27 of the Indian 3.2 The contents of the complaint disclose that on 27.3.2009 at about 5 or 5.30 p.m. the complainant received a phone call and the person who called told that they haxie for digging borewell at the point already identified!anti-'.i't'hey-~-:0l- invited him to come for performing pooja,...... __As thec'oi?h»p'l'ain_aVnt,_V all was at Chamarajpet, he informed one Pi;.ttair_aijiuV, same area through mobile to go sai-cii piaceV"to._j'pe.rform = 0' pooja. Accordingly, the said PuttAa_ra§'u__went to "the, place and performed the pooja antfdigging work had commenced. When the bore'we~§l:'}ya's.,.d_ugaforafabaout 40 feet, at that time, his brothers, resident of Vidyanagar'--NagaVrajVu':.~@~PatjaltiiNgaraj, Narasimha @ Simha, Lava Kusha_alonVg"wit_h 50=-6a0.a'persons formed a group and came there..and'...,pre,yented from"'"digging the borewell. Thereupon one Puttaraaji;',a_"Nag:al=aju:"and Ramanna called the complainant :iJ't~i'*.rough"rnobi|ve.'bh0lne at 8.30 p.m. and informed him about
--.a.l.l'1;vr;i.un..,and otheirs obstructing them for digging of the borewell 'arid also told that the said persons assaulted them and . 'thraeatearied them that they will not allow to dig borewell. On VifiV,:_g"'thegfsame day at about 9.20 the complainant came to the spot .5,/'J and while speaking with petitioner No.1 -- Arjun, he suddenly assaulted the complainant on his cheek and his brother__ and other associates abused the complainant and his friends,:'-in'~..a filthy language and threatened them showing pistol«thatifitf.i't--h,e%,,<.._T'. do not leave the place, they will kill them_._ g"Att'1that'titia&ie,p' Nagaraj @ Pataki Nagaraj assaulted con*;:plaii'niantéby chopper on the backside of his hea'd__a--nd his'associatesfiassaisalted the friends of the complainant viz. .l.\lat_;l_evsh,_lVlahesh, Rangaswamy, Krishna and others,. gAt.,'th'eftjiim'ei.,,of the incident, they also robbed 65 g.rams:.b'r'ace*let'*.an_d' neck chain worn by the'lVcoVm'p.lai.ina'n3i;"and»,::cashuyof"l§s.2,10,000/-- which he had kept in l'x1Es"j.ul)Vba,V"ant.fl"hey'~.Edl.50 assaulted on Mahesh and snatched the neck-VcVha.in',~.wo*rnV"i5y him. The complainant left the 'vehi Clé 'thsere and ra n' "away.
A"4.._ 'After~vi4nt(est,iVg.a'tion, the Police have laid the charge sheet "1aVga_inst the Acgcused l\los.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under ,323,'=--324, 504, 506(8) read with Section--3-4 of Indian *-Cords', In the case diary, the wound certificates of C.M. @/ Nagarj and IVLC. Manju were aiso found, which discloses that they had sustained simple injuries.
5. The averments made in the complaint...re}Jeais::'that'? Accused Nos.1 to 4 assauited the compiainant'a;nci._CWs.i5,6-._and,ii'
8. Filing of the charge sheet constit4utes"t.hVe" cases against the petitioners/accused. not t'he':rarest':§ofV rare case where this Court can power under Section»-482 of Code of__Crimirial.Viiérocewdurg.~A.,:t§i.',:'qVi;'ash the crime. This Criminal Petifipfi 4i"5¥:.1'd§_'?."~".?';i:'fl same is liable to be dismisséd. it
6. In the resu!t_;' I» pass'~.thei°oliowing:
4' '""oRDER """
_This_ 'VCsri:m-_iVna'Ei' Petition is dismissed. Sd/~» KESE