Karnataka High Court
Nagendra @ Bonda vs State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8093/2019
BETWEEN:
NAGENDRA @ BONDA,
S/O SHIVA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O KOTIKERE VILLAGE AND POST
BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI H. KANTHARAJA, ADVOCATE AND
SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE
FOR KANTHARAJA ASSOCIATES (THROUGH V.C.)]
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BEGUR POLICE,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO.33/2019 AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAME ON THE FILE OF THE
2
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUNDLUPETE FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 341 READ
WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash C.C.No.33/2019 registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 20.03.2018, one Santhosha S/o Racha Nayaka died and hence UDR No.1/2018 was registered invoking Section 174(3) and (4). The police went to the spot and conducted the inquest at Begur PHC. While handing over the body, the people who had gathered near the hospital, by forming an unlawful assembly to the extent of 60-70 persons, protested that it was not a natural death and he was murdered and refused to take the body. The said fact was 3 brought to the notice of the superiors. In the mean time, the petitioner and others blocked the road and caused obstruction for the movement of the vehicles. The CPI also came to the spot along with staff and inspite of the advice, they did not heed to the advice of the CPI and police and insisted to register the case as murder case. Hence, the police have registered the case. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge- sheet implicating the petitioner as accused No.23.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition is that there are no grounds for unlawful assembly and the very allegation does not attract the said offence. The police have invoked Section 341 of IPC and there was no wrongful restrainment and the name of the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel would submit that the statements of the eye-witnesses are contrary to each other and there are inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses. The learned counsel would submit that the name of the petitioner was not found in the FIR and only on the statement of certain witnesses, his name has been 4 implicated. Hence, it amounts to an abuse of process. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has been selected in Civil Services and his appointment is withheld because of this case. Hence, this Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that it was a mob attack and there were 60-70 persons. Hence, at the first instance, the name of the petitioner was not found in the FIR. During the course of the investigation, the eye-witnesses i.e., C.Ws.4 to 8 have made the statement that they have witnessed the incident and this petitioner was also part of the unlawful assembly and caused wrongful restraint. Hence, this Court cannot exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also on perusal of the records, no doubt at the first instance while registering the case, the name of the petitioner was not found and during the course 5 of investigation, he has been arrayed as accused No.23. On perusal of the FIR, the names of 15 accused persons are mentioned and specific allegation is made that there were 60-70 persons, who have formed unlawful assembly and caused obstruction by blocking the road. On perusal of the statement of the witnesses - C.Ws.4 to 8 have categorically mentioned that this petitioner also was part of unlawful assembly and caused obstruction. When the police have investigated and filed the charge-sheet and when there are eye-witnesses to the incident who points out the involvement of the petitioner and also a member of an unlawful assembly, this Court exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot ascertain the truthfulness of the statements of the witnesses. The statement of the eye-witnesses has to be tested in trial. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses, cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. unless the eye-witnesses were examined before the Trial Court. Whether the petitioner was a part of unlawful assembly and caused obstruction and whether the eye-witnesses have 6 witnessed the incident, has to be ascertained only in a full fledged trial. The very contention that the name of the petitioner was not found in the FIR cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., since the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is already filed.
7. The other contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been selected in Civil Services also cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only if there is an abuse of process, which leads to miscarriage of justice. I do not find any such circumstances when the eye-witnesses have given the statement with regard to involvement of this petitioner in the incident.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following.
7
ORDER The petition is rejected. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is selected for Civil Services, the Trial Judge is directed to make an endeavor to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD