Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Yogesh vs Sri Tanvir C on 1 September, 2023

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                   -1-
                                                               NC: 2023:KHC:31575
                                                          CRL.P No. 11750 of 2022




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                                 BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11750 OF 2022
                        BETWEEN:

                        1.    SRI YOGESH,
                              S/O SRI VENKATESH
                              AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
                              R/AT NO.112, 12TH MAIN,
                              15TH CROSS, KOGILU VILLAGE
                              YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.

                        2.    SRI NAGESH
                              S/O SRI NAGARAJ
                              AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
                              R/AT KOGILU VILLAGE
                              NEAR POOJAMMA TEMPLE
                              YELAHANKA, BANGALORE -560 064.
                                                                    ...PETITIONERS
                        (BY SRI. C RAJANNA, ADVOCATE)

                        AND:
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR           1.    SRI TANVIR C
Location: High Court
of Karnataka                  S/O SRI ANWAR
                              AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
                              R/AT ASAR MOHALLA
                              MADHUGIRI ROAD, SIRA TOWN AND TALUK
                              TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
                        2.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                              BY YALAHANKA POLICE STATION
                              BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU DISTRICT
                              REPRESENTED BY ITS P.P
                              HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                        (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1;
                            SRI M KESHAVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                                 -2-
                                           NC: 2023:KHC:31575
                                      CRL.P No. 11750 of 2022




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.38/2020,
C.C.NO.14051/2020   OF    YALAHANKA     POLICE   STATION,
BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT REGISTERED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS FOR AN ALLEGED
OFFENCE P/U/S.143, 147, 504, 323, 353, 332 R/W SEC.149 OF
IPC NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 37th ACMM,
BENGALURU CITY.

     THIS  PETITION,   COMING    ON   FOR  REPORTING
SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent No.1.

2. Sri M Keshavamurthy, learned counsel files power on behalf of the respondent No.2.

3. The petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 7 are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 353, 332 read with Section 149 of IPC.

4. The case of the prosecution is that when the complainant was discharging his duty as driver, the accused herein along with other accused assaulted and restrained him from discharging his official duty.

5. The petitioners and the defacto complainant are present before this Court and they have filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.PC for compounding of the offences -3- NC: 2023:KHC:31575 CRL.P No. 11750 of 2022 stating that as on the date of the alleged incident, these accused were not present at the spot and the respondent No.2 has no objection for quashing the impugned proceeding. The application is placed on record.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State would submit that the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC cannot be compounded, since it is a cognizable offence.

7. A perusal of further statement of the complainant indicates that he came to know these accused and other accused assaulted and he has not categorically stated that he has seen these accused assaulting him. Hence, in the absence of any material that these accused assaulted the complainant, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.

8. Though the offences are cognizable and non- compoundable, however, having regard to the fact that, the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves, and the respondent No.2 having categorically stated that he has not seen these accused assaulting him, it would be futile exercise if the petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 5 are subjected to trial, since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in the absence of incriminating material against the petitioners herein. Accordingly, I pass the following:

-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:31575 CRL.P No. 11750 of 2022 ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.14051/2020 arising out of Crime No.38/2020 pending on the file of the Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 7 is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE BKM