Karnataka High Court
Hanamant S/O Dundappa Marapur vs State Of Karnataka, on 27 June, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100980/2017
BETWEEN:
HANAMANT S/O DUNDAPPA MARAPUR
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: NIL (PARALYZED PATIENT),
R/O: BISANKOPP VILLAGE,
TALUK: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VYAS S. DESAI AND JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED THROUGH SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, DHARWAD.
AND KULGOD POLICE STATION KULGOD
TQ: GOKAK.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK-HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH
THE FIR CRIME NO.113 OF 2016 DATED 04.06.2016
REGISTERED AT KULGOD POLICE STATION AND PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.613 OF 2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC MUDALGI UNDER SECTION 379 IPC, SECTION 4(1)
READ WITH 21 OF MMDR ACT, 1958 AND RULE 3, 32,44 OF
KMMC RULES, 1994 AND THIS CASE IS TRANSER TO BELAGAVI
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SPL.C/56 OF 2017 RES.
NO.SPL.C.57 OF 2017.
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by petitioner-accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying this Court to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings initiated against the present petitioner and pending in C.C.No.613/2016 and after committal of the case now registered in Special Case No.57/2017 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 4(1) read with Section 21 of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1958 and Rule 3, 32 and 44 of the K.M.C.C. Rules 1994.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that P.S.I of Kulgod Police Station said to have received the information on 04.06.2016 at 04.00 p.m. hours. That in certain land in Basankoppa village belonging to one Hanumath Marapur had accumulated sand with intention of sale in his land from the adjoining riverbed of Gataprabha river. Accordingly the said P.S.I. left to the spot at 4.15.p.m. along with CHC B.No.184, CPC B.No.1158 and CPC B.No.2610 and asked the two panchas to come along with :3: them and then conducted the raid in the said land. It is further stated that, on the land adjoining Gataprabha river, sand was accumulated and stored and a person was standing nearby. On enquiry by the P.S.I. he identified himself as Hanumanth Gundappa Marapur i.e., the petitioner herein resident of Basankoppa village and stated that the land belongs to him and that he had accumulated the sand for the purpose of sale. On further enquiry by the P.S.I. the said persons stated that he had no lease and licence granted to him for the said purpose by the government and ran away from the said spot. Thereafter, he conducted the spot panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses, inspected and there were 8 heaps of sand found in the same place valued around Rs.24,000/- and photos were taken of the said spot. Thereafter after conducting and completing the investigation, Kulgod police have filed the charge sheet in the matter.
3. The petitioner herein challenged the legality and correctness of the initiation of the criminal proceedings :4: against him, on the grounds as he contended in the petition at ground No.13 to 23.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned HCGP. Counsel for the petitioner made the submission that on 04.04.2017 the Village Accountant issued endorsement showing the land was not standing in the name of present petitioner. Learned counsel further made the submission that on 05.04.2017, doctor has issued the certificate that the present petitioner suffering from paralysis attack and he is not capable to speak, walk etc. Hence the counsel submitted that looking to these materials on record, false complaint has been filed against the petitioner. Hence, same is to be quashed.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the allegations made in the complaint there is a prima facie case as against the present petitioner. Sofar as the contention of the petitioner regarding the alleged endorsement said to have been :5: issued by the Talati/Village Accountant, so also the medical certificate regarding the paralytic attack, these are the disputed questions of facts, which are to be ascertained by the trial Court after recording the evidence in the case. This Court cannot ascertain all these things in this criminal petition. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, documents, FIR, complaint and other materials produced along with the petition. Looking to the contention of the petitioner herein that the endorsement issued by the Village Accountant shows that said land is not at all standing in the name of the present petitioner. The further contention that the petitioner has been attacked by paralysis and he was not all in a position to speak or walk. Looking to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court has to look into to the FIR, and other prosecution material, whether there is a prima facie material placed by the prosecution to substantiate the offences. The Court has to see whether the case of the prosecution is totally groundless or there is no prima facie case made out and it :6: is filed with an intention to wreck vengeance as against the petitioner. But looking to the allegations made in the complaint and the other prosecution material collected during investigation, so also the photographs, they prima facie goes to show the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that he was suffering from paralytic attack and the doctor certificate, it is a matter for trial. This Court cannot assume the role of the trial Court to go through the truthfulness or the falsity of the said material while considering the case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, as there is a prima facie material placed by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution case is either groundless or without prima facie case made out. No grounds in this petition. Accordingly, same is hereby rejected at the stage of the admission itself.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-