Karnataka High Court
Manju S/O Mukhappa Ilachi, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 19 September, 2016
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100838/2016
BETWEEN
MANJU S/O MUKHAPPA ILACHI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: SUDAMBI, TQ: BYADAGI,
DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.H.PATIL, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KAGINELE POLICE,
REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.810/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BYADGI REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 326,
504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
The case of the complainant is that accused Nos.1 to 5 and their family members are using a road for passing the tractor which was objected to by the complainant. The accused thereafter developed vengeance against the complainant. Accordingly, on 09.04.2015 at about 02:00 p.m. when the complainant was in his house, accused Nos.1 to 6 formed an unlawful assembly and tried to construct a shoulder wall to the above said conservative road. All the accused abused him in filthy language and he was assaulted by the accused. Based on the same, on a complaint being registered, FIR was lodged against the accused persons under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 504, 506 read with section 149 of IPC. On investigation, a charge sheet has been filed. Seeking to quash the charge sheet, the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the date of incident, petitioner was not present on the scene of offence. This aspect has not been considered by the prosecution, who had filed the charge sheet mechanically. :3:
3. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the view that there is no merit in this petition. The fact whether the petitioner was on the scene of offence is a matter of fact. The prosecution would have to establish the same. Merely to accept the plea of the petitioner that he was not present on the scene of offence, at this stage it is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh