Karnataka High Court
Maruti @ Balu Raghu Gurav vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2012
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRL.P. NO.10712/2012
BETWEEN:
1. MARUTI @ BALU RAGHU GURAV
AGED 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BAAD, TALUK HUKKERI-591 309,
DIST. BELGAUM.
2. RAGHU SHIVAPPA GURAV
AGED 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BAAD, TALUK HUKKERI-591 309,
DIST. BELGAUM.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.S.KAMTE, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH
DHARWAD-580 011.
2. RAJARAM GANGARAM HATTIKAR
AGED 56 YEARS, R/O BAAD,
TALUK HUKKERI-591 309,
DIST. BELGAUM.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT
AND FIR DATED 21.5.2012 PRODUCED AT ANN.D AND E
AND PROCEEDINGS THEREUNDER REGISTERED AT
SANKESHWAR P.S. IN CRIME NO.146/12 U/S 323, 504,
506, R/W 34, I.P.C. AND SEC.3(1)(x) OF SCHEDULED
CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
ORDER
Petitioners are arraigned for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Crime No.146/12.
2. Invoking Section 482, they seek quashing of proceedings on the following grounds:
• Petitioners are owners of land bearing Survey No.116/1C/1 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas and Kharab land measuring 5 guntas on which there is a well. The lands are situate in Baad village of Hukkeri Taluk.
• Petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land as co-owners. They irrigate the crop through well water. There was interference to their possession as local villagers tried to trespass on 3 the land and started digging the area to form a road.
• It necessitated filing of O.S. 112/03 for declaration and injunction. The suit was decreed in part restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with their peaceful possession, or forming any pucca road. But it was held plaintiffs (petitioners) shall not prevent the inhabitants of the village to draw water from the well by using the pathway upto it.
• On 7.12.2004, petitioners claim to have complied with the terms of the decree, but the defendant in the suit-Prakash Yamanappa Mailare, with sinister design, initiated prosecution in Spl.Case No.34/05 alleging that that the petitioners along with others had physically assaulted him and committed atrocity as they belong to Scheduled Caste. • Petitioners faced trial along with other accused and succeeded in obtaining acquittal by judgment dated 4.8.2007. Subsequent to it, it is alleged, the 2nd accused-respondent, at the instance of Prakash Yamanappa Mailare, filed a complaint alleging petitioners had interrupted him from taking water from the well and also committed atrocity.
• Interim order was issued and the case has come up today for consideration.
4
3. Learned counsel on both sides submit final report has been submitted by the police officer which is received by the learned Special Judge.
4. From what Mr.Kamte had adverted to and the records, it is evident there is no love lost between the petitioners and one set of persons in the village. The genesis of the dispute is the well on the land of the petitioners with limited right to the inhabitants to draw water. Petitioners seek quashing of proceedings contending it amounts to misuse of the process of law as, on the same allegation, petitioners had to face trial and were successfully acquitted, and if the present proceedings are allowed to continue, it will be a mockery of justice.
5. No doubt the contention of Mr.Kamte would justify examination of final report of the police officer for ascertainment as to whether the complaint under investigation is the result of intentional malicious prosecution of the petitioners, or whether it reflects the actual offences.
5
6. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and all that we have is copy of the original suit, copy of FIR and the complaint. The trial court is now seized of the matter and it is at the stage of filing charge sheet. Therefore, it is desirable that the petitioners are permitted to approach the learned Special Judge for discharge, bringing out these materials on record. It is the trial court which will be able to consider the material available on record and give its finding.
7. Hence, while dismissing th4e petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek discharge. When such request is made, learned Special Judge shall consider the nature of allegations in Spl.Case No.34/05, finding of the civil court in O.S.12/03 and the present complaint for ascertainment as to whether it makes out any case for framing charge against the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE vgh*