Karnataka High Court
Farzana W/O Latif And Anr vs State Through Town Police Station on 10 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (4) AKR 292
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200122/2017
Between:
1. Farzana W/o Latif
Age: 30 years, Occ: Household
2. Mubeena
W/o Mashum Maniyar
Aged about 31 years
Occ: Household
Both are r/o Mashumpura Colony
Bhalki, Dist. Bidar
... Petitioners
(By Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, Advocate)
And:
State through
Town Police Station
Bhalki
... Respondent
(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to call for records and consequently, to
quash split-up charge sheet and entire proceedings in
C.C.No.67/2013 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) and JMFC, Bhalki, vide document No.19.
2
This petition is coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the split-up charge sheet and the entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.67/2013 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Bhalki.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, a complaint was lodged against the accused persons in Crime No.123/2010. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.74/2011. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested in C.C.No.74/2011. Since accused Nos.4 and 5 were absconding, split-up charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.67/2013. The case in respect of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in C.C.No.74/2011 was committed to the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, sitting at Bhalki and S.C.No.17/2013 was given in 3 respect of accused No.1 and S.C.Nos.128/2012 & 12/2012 were given in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3. After conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 by common judgment and order dated 03.05.2014. Since the split up charge sheet was filed against the petitioners, now they have come up before this Court praying that in the said case no witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and a false case has been registered against the accused/petitioners.
3. It is also contended that no useful purpose would be served if the petitioners are asked to face the trial. It is further contended that material produced has already been appreciated and after considering the same, accused Nos.1 to 3 have been acquitted. It is further contended that if the trial is held, it amounts to abuse of process of law. On these grounds, learned 4 counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing the proceedings pending in C.C.No.67/2013.
4. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that petitioners were absconding and were not available and as such, split up charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.67/2013. Accused Nos.4 and 5 have not faced the trial and now they cannot take advantage of the order passed in S.C.Nos.17/2013, 12/2012 and 28/2012 and they cannot be acquitted and the proceedings pending against them cannot be quashed by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He would also contend that if the proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed, the accused persons will take undue advantage and they will remain behind the curtain and will not face the trial. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5
5. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
6. It is not in dispute that the case was registered in Crime No.123/2010 and subsequently, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.74/2011. Since accused Nos.4 and 5 were absconding, split up charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.67/2013. After committal of the case, S.C.Nos.17/2013, 128/2012 and 12/2012 were registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively. It is also not in dispute that after the trial they were acquitted by common judgment and order dated 03.05.2014. Be that as it may. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the said case accused Nos.1 to 3 have been acquitted therefore, there is no useful purpose in again trying accused Nos.4 and 5.
6
7. When accused Nos.4 and 5 have been absconded and split up charge sheet has been filed, they cannot take advantage of the trial which has been held against accused Nos.1 to 3. Whether the witnesses who have been examined are going to support the case of the prosecution or not is a matter which will be determined only when the witnesses are examined before the Court at the time of trial. Be that as it may, if this method of quashing the proceedings is encouraged, accused persons will cultivate the habit of absconding and will not face the trial. One or two accused persons will face the trial and if they are acquitted, the other accused persons will come and file the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If the accused persons are convicted, the other accused persons will remain absconded and will not face the trial. Due to this, the very purpose of criminal jurisprudence will be defeated. Such type of activities of the accused has to 7 be discouraged. Therefore, I feel that this is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings.
8. In view of the above discussion, the petition stands dismissed. Petitioners are directed to face the trial in C.C.No.67/2013.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*