Karnataka High Court
Anand Mahalingappa Goondi vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 14 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO.101258/2017
BETWEEN:
ANAND MAHALINGAPPA GOONDI
AGE: 56 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: JAMKHANDI GIRISH NAGAR,
BAGALKOTE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V M SHEELVANT, ADVOCA TE.)
AND:
1. THE S TA TE OF KA RNATAKA
THROUGH PSI, JA MAKHANDI TOWN,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. MALLU S/O CHANNAPPA BYAKOD
AGE: 42 YEARS , PRESS REPORTER,
R/O: ALGUR, JAM KHANDI,
BAGALKOTE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER, FOR R.1;
R.2 - NO TICE S ERVED.)
2
THIS CRIM INAL PETITION IS F ILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., S EEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS, AS
AGAINST PETITIO NER, IN JAMAKHANDI TOWN POLICE
STA TION CRIME NO. 65 OF 2017, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKH ANDI,
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 341,
307, 427, 504 AND SECTION 34 OF IPC, AGAINS T THE
PETITIONER, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLO WING:
ORDER
This the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against him, in Jamakhandi Town P.S. Crime No.65/2017, pending on the file of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 307, 427, 504 and section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, that the complainant Mallu Channappa Byakod, who is the press reporter, lodged the complaint on 2.4.2017 alleging that respondent is reporter of Hi-Bengaluru 3 and Golibar newspapers. He is permanent resident of Algur village. On 2.4.2017, at about 3.00 p.m., when the complainant was in Jamakhandi KSRTC bus-stand, he received call from an unknown person asking to give some news to the complainant and asked about his whereabouts; after coming to know that he is in Jamakhandi bus-stand, accused Nos.1 to 3 approached the complainant and that accused No.1 demanded payment of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. When the complainant asked as to why he has to return when he has not taken any amount, at that time accused Nos.1 to 3 started abusing him and accused No.2 caught hold of the complainant, accused No.1 assaulted the complainant on his face with hands and also pressed his private part with an intention to kill him; accused No.3 assaulted him on the body with hands and legs; when the complainant started screaming, the locality people rescued the complainant; when the complainant tried to call police authorities by making a phone call, the accused No.1 destroyed the 4 cell phone by throwing it to the ground. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the said offence. During the course of investigation, the present petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.5.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5, so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State. The respondent No.2 though served, remained absent and there is no representation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- accused No.5 made submission that, looking to the complaint averments, the case is specific as against accused Nos.1 to 3 that they came to the bus-stand where the complainant was present and they assaulted him. Learned counsel further made submission that so far as the petitioner-accused No.5 is concerned, he is totally unconnected with the case of either the complainant or the say of accused Nos.1 to 3. Learned 5 counsel submitted that on the basis of the voluntary statement said to have been given by the present petitioner, the police have arraigned the present petitioner in the case. Learned counsel submitted, absolutely there is no material as against the present petitioner about his involvement in committing the alleged offence. Hence he submitted, it is clear abuse of the process of the Court. Hence the petition be allowed and the proceedings as against the petitioner- accused No.5 are to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that though in the original complaint the name of the present petitioner is not mentioned, as well as in the FIR, but subsequently during investigation, on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1, the present petitioner was arraigned and when enquired, the present petitioner also gave the voluntary statement. Hence the learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that 6 in the voluntary statement the present petitioner clearly admitted that himself along with accused No.4 instigated accused Nos.1 to 3 to assault the complainant. Hence the learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that this material is sufficient to say that there is involvement of petitioner-accused No.5 in the case. Accordingly he submitted that the petitioner has not made out a case for quashing the proceedings.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, contents of the complaint, FIR and also I have perused the file made over by the learned High Court Government Pleader consisting investigation materials.
7. Perusing the materials collected, in fact the entire charge sheet is ready but the learned High Court Government Pleader made submission, it is not yet presented before the concerned Court. Looking to the contents of the complaint, the complainant made the allegations that on 2.4.2017 when he went to the 7 bus-stand in order to read newspapers in the bookstall, at that time somebody called him to his mobile phone No.9448040047 and informed him that he wanted to give news item to be published and asked his whereabouts. The complainant informed the place. Accordingly the accused No.1 Anjaneya Hadimani, who brought other two persons Mahadev and Bharamappa along with him, when they came, accused No.1 Anjaneya asked the complainant that he is due to pay Rs.10,000/- and asked him to pay and when the complainant was enquiring as to why he has to pay that amount, all the three persons abused him in filthy language; accused Mahadev caught hold him tightly and other accused persons assaulted him on his face with an intention to commit his murder and one of them squeezed his testicles; at that time when the complainant was screaming, one Jagadish Karadi and Sangappa Biradar also came to the said place and pacified the quarrel; therefore he lodged the complaint 8 against the three persons; accordingly FIR came to be registered.
8. Looking to the contents of the complaint, there is no whisper about the role of the present petitioner accused No.5. It is the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader, during the investigation it was transpired that accused No.4 along with the present petitioner both instigated accused Nos.1 to 3 to go and assault the complainant. He also contends that there is a voluntary statement of accused No.1, so also there is voluntary statement of the present petitioner-accused No.5.
9. So far as the voluntary statement of accused No.1 is concerned, it is not at all binding on the present petitioner and the accused No.5 who is the petitioner herein, he cannot give any statement against his own interest and it is also not admissible, he cannot give any witness against himself, as per Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, on the principle of 9 self incrimination. Not only that, so far as the main incident is concerned, it has taken place in the broad daylight and there is no confusion for the complainant, he has narrated specifically the three persons came and assaulted him and thereby they have committed the offence.
10. Looking to these materials and also the statement of witnesses collected during investigation, so also perusing the voluntary statement said to have been given by the present petitioner, it is altogether different and it is not in connection with the due amount of Rs.10,000/- which the complainant has to pay to accused No.4. Therefore even the contents of the voluntary statement said to have been given by the present petitioner-accused No.5 also will not come to the aid and assistance of the prosecution case for impleading him in the said case.
11. Looking to these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that so far as petitioner-accused 10 No.5 is concerned, it is a false case and it is abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The proceedings as against the petitioner- accused No.5 initiated in Jamakhandi Town P.S. Crime No.65/2017, pending on the file of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-