Karnataka High Court
N Y Gopalakrishna vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1058 of 2009
BETWEEN:
N.Y. Gopalakrishna,
S/o. late Sri. N. Yellappa,
Aged 55 years,
Occupation: Social Worker,
Resident of Rampura Village,
Taluk: Molakalmuru.
District: Chitradurga. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. N.Y. Guruprakash, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Molakalmuru Police Station. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri Satish R. Girji, Government Pleader)
*****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire
proceedings and taking cognizance and issue of process dated
2
20.01.2009 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Molakalmuru
in C.C.No.26/2009.
This petition is coming on for hearing this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petition is of the year 2009 and has now come up for final hearing. The petition was admitted and stay of further proceedings was granted on 25.3.2013. It is only now that the matter has been listed for final hearing.
2. The facts of the case are that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Molakalmuru Police Station had registered a suo motu case in Crime No.59/2008 on 29.4.2008 at 4p.m. for the offences punishable under Sections 171C, 341, 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) read with Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
3
3. The allegations were to the effect that the present petitioner, who was a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, came along with his followers Ramesh Babu, Mahesh Babu and others, to file his nomination as a candidate of the National Congress Party and had brought along with him people from Rampur and other villages in 20 tractors, 15 lorries, 20 tempo vehicles and 10 buses, thereby blocking Nunkappana Katte road and Molakalmuru H.R.Road. The congregation holding banners had caused nuisance and inconvenience to the public and the petitioner had violated the Election Code of Conduct Order of the Deputy Commissioner in MAG(2) Cr 28/08-09 dated 26.4.2008. Therefore, a case was registered by the Police. After registering the case, the respondent - Police had sent the complaint and the First Information Report to the jurisdictional court and on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed. The court having issued process, the petitioner is before this court.
4
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire material collected by the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet and the allegations made in the complaint with the statement of the witnesses, would not go to show that there was violation of the Code of Conduct or any criminal act committed by the petitioner, in the absence of necessary particulars alleging commission of the said offence. A plain reading of the complaint and the statement of the witnesses taken on their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie make out any offence and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed. The case is politically motivated and is on the face of it, absurd. In the absence of necessary particulars, such as the identity of the actual vehicles that were involved and the registration number of the said vehicles or the exact number of people that were there and their names, it is impossible for the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the statements of the 5 witnesses, who are all police officers. The learned Counsel, therefore, would submit that the proceedings be quashed.
5. It is to be seen that the allegation is of an offence, the maximum punishment for which, is imprisonment of one month or fine, or both, and having regard to the lapse of time without any further proceedings, and given the nature of allegations and the material that is produced, it is a futile effort to proceed against the petitioner in the absence of necessary particulars, as rightly mentioned by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No useful purpose would be served in bringing the petitioner to book on the basis of such material.
The petition is allowed. The proceedings before the learned JMFC, Molakalmuru in CC No.26/2009 are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv