Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh S/O. Hanumanthappa Hubballi vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRL.P No. 100476 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100476 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATESH S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA HUBBALLI
AGE- 55 YEARS,
OCC- LABOURER,
R/O-BUVEERAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST- HAVERI - 581 115.
2. LILAVATI W/O VENKATESH HUBBALLI
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: LABOURER,
R/O: BUVEERAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI - 581 115.
3. NAGARAJ S/O VENKATESH HUBBALLI
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: LAW PRACTIONER (ADVOCATE),
R/O: BUVEERAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI - 581 115.
4. RAMKRISHNA S/O VENKATESH HUBBALLI
John AGE: 24 YEARS,
Doe OCC: PVT. JOB,
R/O: BUVEERAPUR VILLAGE,
Digitally TQ AND DIST: HAVERI - 581 115.
signed by
John Doe
5. GEETA D/O VENKATESH HUBBALLI
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BUVEERAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI - 581 115.
...PETITIONERS
-2-
CRL.P No. 100476 of 2020
(BY SRI SHRINIVAS K. NADAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HAVERI RURAL POLICE STATION,
HAVERI, REPRESENTED BY
THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
2. PARSHURAM S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA TALWAR
AGE 26 YEARS,
OCC- AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BUVEERAPUR VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT HAVERI - 581 119.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI M.R . HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN THE HRPS
NO.59/2019 (C.C.NO.1057/2019) FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 354(B), 504,
R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., HAVERI ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.P No. 100476 of 2020
ORDER
Police after investigation submitted that the charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 234, 354(B), 504 read with Section 149 of IPC, alleging that when respondent No.2 asked to petitioners/accused as to why they have filed complaint against him before Gram panchayat for misappropriation of funds under the Mnrega Scheme, at that point of time, the petitioners/accused abused her in filthy language and assaulted her. Learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by petitioners/accused No.3. He further submits that the allegation made in the FIR does not disclose the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners/accused.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for -4- CRL.P No. 100476 of 2020 respondent No.2 submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offences and learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the said offences and same does not warrant any interference.
4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
5. Perusal of the charge sheet and also the materials produced along with charge sheet indicates that the only allegation is that the petitioners/accused abused respondent No.2 in filthy language and assaulted. No material is placed along with the charge sheet to substantiate the allegation that the respondent No.2 sustained the simple injuries due to the alleged assault by the petitioners/accused. In the absence of any corroborative material, the charge sheet filed for the offences punishable under Section 323 of IPC is impermissible.
6. To constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 354(B), any man must have assaulted or used criminal force to any woman or abeted such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked. In the -5- CRL.P No. 100476 of 2020 present case the charge sheet material does not disclose that there was intention on the part of the accused to disrobe respondent No.2. In the absence of any essential ingredients to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 354(B), the charge sheet filed is without any substance.
7. To constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 504, the intentional insult must be of such a degree so as to cause breach of public peace or commission of any other offence. In the present case, the abusive language alleged to have been used by the petitioners/accused her not resulted in breaking public peace or commission of any other offence.
8. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding will be an abuse of law, since the probability of conviction is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed.-6- CRL.P No. 100476 of 2020
The impugned proceeding in C.C.No.1057/2019, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Haveri, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 127