Karnataka High Court
Shree Chikkappa S/O. Guddappa Hosamani vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100121/2014
BETWEEN
1. SHREE CHIKKAPPA
S/O. GUDDAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
DIST: HAVERI
2. SHREE SHIVAPPA
S/O. GUDDAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
DIST: HAVERI
3. SHREE BASAPPA
S/O. GUDDAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
DIST: HAVERI
2
4. SHREE RAMACHANDRA
S/O. GUDDAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
DIST: HAVERI
5. SHREE NINGAPPA
S/O. GUDDAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI,
TQ: HANAGAL DIST: HAVERI
6. SHREE UDACHAPPA
S/O. GUDDAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI,
TQ: HANAGAL DIST: HAVERI
7. SHREE ASHOK
S/O. CHIKKAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI,
TQ: HANAGAL DIST: HAVERI
8. SHREE NAGAPPA
S/O. CHIKKAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI,
TQ: HANAGAL DIST: HAVERI
3
9. SHREE MALLESH
S/O. CHIKKAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: ADVOCATE & AGRICULTURE
R/O. TQ & DIST: HAVERI
10. SHREE PARAMESHI
S/O. SHIVAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
11. SHREE KUMAR
S/O. SHIVAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
12. SHREE MANJUNATH
S/O. BASAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
13. SHREE KRISHNA
S/O. UDACHAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
4
14. SHREE PRAKASH
S/O. FAKKIRAPPA VAGGANNANAVAR
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
15. SHREE MALLESH
S/O. FAKKIRAPPA VAGGANNANAVAR
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
16. SHREE MALATESH
S/O. HANUMANAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
17. SHREE BASAVARAJ
S/O. HANUMANTAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
18. SMT LAXMAVVA
W/O. CHIKAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
5
19. SMT GOURAWA
W/O. FAKKIRAPPA VAGGANNANAVAR
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
20. SMT CHANNAMMA
W/O. UDACHAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
21. SMT LALITAVVA
W/O. NINGAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI
22. SMT. MALIGEWA
W/O. BASAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAMANAHALLI, TQ: HANAGAL
& DIST: HAVERI. ... PETITIONERS
(By SRI. : SHIVASAI M PATIL, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
CPI HANGAL POLICE STATION,
HANGAL
6
2. NAGAVVA
W/O. HANUMANTAPPA MADAR
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: FARMER
R/O. KAMANAHALLI VILLAGE
TQ:HANGAL
DIST: HAVERI. ... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT BEFORE
THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HANGAL CIRCLE,
HANGAL IN THEIR POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.209/2013 DATED 23.10.2013 FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 504, 506 R/W
SEC. 149 OF I.P.C. AND 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
1989 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire Investigation process in Crime No.209/2013 pending on the file of the Hangal Police. 7
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel who tried to persuade unsuccessfully that there is no specific allegations against the petitioners that they have committed the offences alleged by the complainant by name Nagavva W/o Hanumantappa Madar, on which basis the case was registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
3. I have carefully perused the complaint averments. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste, Madar by community. It is alleged that on 16.10.2013 when this complainant along with her family members were all proceeding towards their house, at that time all the accused persons came there and abused the complainant and her family members with filthy language and also dragged the complainant and her family members from 8 the road and also abused them particularly referring to their caste, etc., and assaulted them and also threatened them with dire consequences of killing if they use the said road near the house of the accused.
4. The above said allegations as rightly contended by the learned Counsel though not specifically mentioned the names of the accused persons, but nevertheless it clearly discloses that all the accused persons alleged to have committed such an offence as alleged by the complainant. The first information report cannot be styled as an encyclopedia. On over all looking to the allegations made, the Court has to find out whether any offence is constituted or not at the time of taking the cognizance of the offence. But, here the case has not yet reached the stage of cognizance, it is still under the stage of investigating before the Police. This Court cannot at this stage imagine what report would be submitted in the case by the Police before the 9 Magistrate, what order the Magistrate may pass on the basis of such report of investigation. In my opinion, investigation cannot be stalled at this stage merely on the ground that specific role has not been given to the petitioners/accused persons in the first information report, that has to be thrashed out during the course of investigation.
5. With these observations, the following Order is passed :
The petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
In view of the dismissal of the petition, the I.A. No. 1/2014 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rbv