Karnataka High Court
Sri Pradeep Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5602 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Pradeep Shetty,
Son of Sri. Seetharama Shetty,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at Kanjooru House,
Bannuru Village and Post,
Puttur Taluk - 574 201,
Dakshina Kannada District.
2. Sri. Chinmaya Krishna,
Son of Sri. Gopala Krishna Bhat,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at Alangar House,
Vittal Mudnoor,
Bantwal Taluk 574 211,
Dakshina Kannada District.
3. Sri. Lathesh Shetty,
Son of Sri. Babu Shetty,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at Mantame House,
Charvaka Village and Post,
2
Puttur Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada District 574 328.
4. Sir. Vithesh Shetty,
Son of Sri. Babu Shetty,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at Mantame House,
Charvaka Village and Post,
Puttur Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada District 574 328.
5. Sri. Manmatha J.,
Son of Sri. Chandrahasa Shetty,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at Shera House,
Kodippady Village and Post,
Puttur Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada District - 574 328.
6. Sri. Dinesh Kumar Jain,
Son of Sri. Uvaraja Balipa,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at Panglai House,
Puttur Kasaba,
Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada District - 574 201.
7. Sri. Theertharama H.S.,
Son of Sri. H.K.Sadashiva Acharya,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at Thauro Compound,
Kallare, Puttur Kasaba,
Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada District - 574 211.
3
8. Sri. Jagath B.,
Son of Sri. Narayana Bhat B.,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at Kumbadi House,
Padnoor Village and Post,
Puttur Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada District - 574 220.
9. Sri. K. Pramod Kumar Rai,
Son of Sri. K. Manjunatha Rai,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.3-1247,
Puttur Kasaba, Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada District - 574 201.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri Pavana Chandra Shetty H., Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By Puttur Town Police,
Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada District,
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Vidhana Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Sri. Jyothi Prakash Punacha,
Major,
Father's name not known to
The petitioners,
4
Manager,
Suddi Bidugade Kannada
Daily News Paper, Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada District - 574 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri K.R.Keshav Murthy, State Public Prosecutor-II for
Respondent No.1)
*****
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the complaint, FIR
and the entire proceedings in Crime No.116/2016 registered by
the first respondent - police and pending on the file of the court
of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District on the
complaint/information given by the second
respondent/complainant for the offences punishable under
Sections 506, 504, 34 of IPC, vide documents No.1,2,3
respectively, and allow this criminal petition.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned State Public Prosecutor. The petition coming on for admission is considered for final disposal.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent has filed a complaint before the police for offences 5 punishable under Sections 506, 504, and Section 34 of the IPC, apart from seeking certain reliefs. The petitioners are said to have organized a Press Meet in Puttur under the leadership of a group called 'Yuva Bharath', thereby protesting against the deviation of Nethravathi river. They had also prepared a documentary film by name 'Nanu namma Nethravathi' and at the press meet, the workers belonging to the daily newspaper by name 'Suddi Bidugade' had abused the Yuva Bharath Group members in filthy language and assaulted them and they had warned them not to hold any meetings or press conferences. Therefore, the petitioners 1 and 2 herein had lodged a complaint before the police alleging the said incident and the same was registered as Crime No.113/2016 for various offences against the second respondent and others. When the matter was under
investigation, as a counterblast and as an afterthought, the second respondent is said to have instituted criminal case in Crime No.116/2016 on 15.05.2016 for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504 and 34 of the IPC. The case has been 6 registered as a non-cognizable offence without taking prior permission of the Magistrate and the ingredients of the offences are itself not attracted. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court.
As the procedure followed by the police is wholly irregular and contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned State Public Prosecutor does not dispute the legal position. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pursuant to the presentation of the complaint are quashed. The further action on the complaint may be taken in accordance with law if at all.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS