Karnataka High Court
Gurupad Mallappa Karagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100229/2014
BETWEEN:
GURUPAD MALLAPPA KARAGI
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC:HOTEL WORK
R/O. HEBBALLI,
TQ: BADAMI
DIST: BAGALKOT
NOTE: ACCUSED NAME HAS BEEN
WRONGLY SHOWN AS
GURUPAD KALLAPPA KARAGI
IN THE COMPLAINT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R K KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KATKOL POLICE
TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELGAUM
2. SMT. MALA
W/O. GURUPAD KARAGI
AGE: 26 YEARS,
2
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. NOW AT ARIBENCHI
TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELGAUM.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HIGH COURT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1;
RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.268/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC COURT, RAMDURG, DIST. BELGAUM, FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED
BY RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-E RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the records.
3
2. Petitioner has approached this Court for second time seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.268/2010 on the file of Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Ramdurg, Belgaum, for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity). The records disclose that earlier in Crl.P. No.10944/2012 all the accused persons including the petitioner herein have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in the same criminal case and this Court after considering the grounds urged before this Court has allowed the petition partly and the proceedings so far it relates to petitioner Nos.2 to 5 i.e., accused Nos.2 to 5 is concerned is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear in the order that the allegations on the basis of which charges have been framed against accused No.1 is to be tried before the Court. It is noted by the Court that the other accused persons were residing with accused No.1 and residing at different places with their respective families and they were not part of the matrimonial 4 home. Therefore, the Court has partially quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 5 and refused to quash the proceedings so far as it relates to accused No.1 is concerned.
3. Subsequent to the above said order, it appears that the learned counsel for accused has filed an application under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) seeking for discharge of accused No.1. The trial Court, in fact, has passed an order modifying the charges framed under Sections 143, 147 and 498A read with Section 149 of I.P.C. by deleting the names of accused Nos.2 to 5 and framed the charges against accused No.1 under Section 498A of I.P.C. and dismissed the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
4. In an earlier petition accused No.1 has approached this Court and charges have already been framed and the same has been challenged before this Court and this Court 5 has categorically held that charges framed against accused Nos.2 to 5 are illegal, and therefore, the said proceeding was quashed to that extent. The charges framed against accused No.1 has been ordered to be continued and the accused No.1 has been directed to face the trial. When such being the case, merely because accused Nos.2 to 5 are deleted from the charges framed by the trial Court the accused No.1 cannot invoke the provision under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. On an earlier occasion this Court had refused to discharge the accused No.1. In my opinion, the second round of litigation filed before this Court is nothing but abuse of process of this Court. The refusal of this Court to interfere with the orders of trial Court so far as framing of charges against accused No.1 is a clear indication and direction that accused No.1 has to face the trial. It appears that in the order passed by this Court accused No.1 has been provided one more chance to appear before the trial Court by filing an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for which he has absolutely no right to file such an application after framing 6 of charges and continuing the proceedings against him. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed on cost. Hence, petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.500/-.
Petitioner has to pay the cost of Rs.500/- to the Advocates Library Fund, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/