Karnataka High Court
Irappa Ramachandra Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2020
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 11 T H DAY OF MARCH 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO.101468/2019
BETWEEN:
1. IRAPPA S/O LA TE RAMACHANDRA NAIK
AGE: 68 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KHANADAL VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, D IS T: BELAGAVI.
2. MALLANAIK S/O IRAPPA NAIK
AGE: 31 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KHANADAL VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, D IS T: BELAGAVI.
3. SUMITRA D/O IRA PPA NAIK
AGE: 49 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KHANADAL VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, D IS T: BELAGAVI.
4. GANGAVVA W/O M ALANAIK NAIK
AGE: 49 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KHANADAL VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, D IS T: BELAGAVI.
5. BHIMAVVA W/O IRAPPA NAIK
AGE: 66 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KHANADAL VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, D IS T: BELAGAVI.
6. BHARATESH IRAPPA NAIK
2
AGE: 256 Y EARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIS T & LABOUR
R/O: KHANADAL VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, D IS T: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NARAYAN V YAJI, ADVOCA TE.)
AND:
1. THE S TA TE OF KA RNATAKA
BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
HAROGERI POLICE S TA TION,
RAIBAG TALUK, D IST: BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY
STA TE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
2. BALAPPA NAIK S/O DUNDAPPA NAIK
AGE: 37 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KHANADAL VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, D IS T: BELAGAVI.-590001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS F ILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET F ILED BY
THE 1 S T RESPONDENT FOR TH E F OR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UND ER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 341,
323, 324, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC,
IN CRIME NO.228/2018, DATED 02.11.2018, A S
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, AS IT IS ILLEGAL AND
NOT MAINTAINABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, RAIBAG, IN
C.C.NO.287/2019, ETC.,.
3
THIS PETITION CO MING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLO WING:
ORDER
Heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and also the HCGP for respondent State.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 2.11.2018, the 2nd respondent herein has lodged a complaint in writing with the 1st respondent that these petitioners obstructed him to pass through their land and in a quarrel abused him with vulgar words and the 4th petitioner herein by holding sickle in hand given life threat. It is further alleged that the accused persons caused injury to his left hand ring finger and based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.228/2018 is registered. The petitioners herein also have filed a complaint and the 1 s t respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.229/2018 and there are case and counter case against each of the parties.
4
3. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is that there are case and counter case and the present crime is registered after the registration of the complaint given by the 3 r d petitioner herein. The petitioner No.6 had attended duty on 2.11.2018 and he was not at the place of the alleged incident and he has been falsely implicated in the case and so also the petitioner No.4 had attended the duty at Sunadholi Anganawadi Centre with her minor daughter and she also has been falsely implicated in this case. In support of their contention, they have produced the document for having attended the duty and the 1 s t respondent based on the false complaint of respondent No.2 have registered false case and hence it requires interference of this Court.
4. The counsel for the petitioners in his arguments also he reiterates the grounds urged in 5 the petition and also the counsel submits that the attendance certificate of the 4 t h petitioner is also enclosed to show that she had been to attend the work at Sunadholi Anganawadi Centre, so also petitioner No.6 was also attended the duty. Hence, it is a clear case that a false case has been registered against these petitioners and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, the HCGP would contend that case and counter case are registered and in order to show that the incident took place, the wound certificates are produced, which shows that an assault was made and hence there is a prima facie case. Whether false case has been registered and they have attended the duty on the particular date of incident has to be decided in a trial and this Court based on the said attendance certificate cannot quash the proceedings. 6
6. Having heard the petitioners' counsel and also the HCGP and also on perusal of the records, particularly the complaint averments, specific overtact allegations are made against each of the petitioners in the complaint dated 2.11.2008 and the said complaint was given on the very same day and according to them the incident took place at 11.30 a.m. and the complaint was given at 19.15 hours and thereafter the police have also conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses. The trial Court after perusing the material available on record, formed its opinion that there are sufficient grounds and prima facie case is made out and hence cognizance is taken for the offences.
7. When the Magistrate has applied his mind while taking cognizance, and also perused the charge sheet and statement of witnesses and 7 its enclosures, this Court do not find any ground to invoke section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the case on hand there are two crimes are registered in Crime Nos.228 and 229 of 2018. Case and counter case are registered and investigation is also conducted in both the crimes and charge sheet has been filed. When such being the case, this Court do not find any reasons to quash the proceedings initiated against these petitioners exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-