Karnataka High Court
Tajoddin @ Taju Ansari vs The State Through Aland P.S on 4 December, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201137/2018
BETWEEN:
TAJODDIN @ TAJU ANSARI S/O JAFFER ANSARI
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK
R/O ANSARI MOHALLA, ALAND
TQ. ALAND, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK B. MULAGE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH ALAND P.S.
TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI
REP. BY ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAQBOOL AHMED, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET
AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF III
ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN
S.C.NO.108/2016, IN CRIME NO.47/2008, FOR THE
2
OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 341, 353, 308,
504, 336, 427, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND
SECTION 2(A) KARNATAKA PUBLIC PROPERTY
DESTRUCTION & LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT, 1986 OF ALAND
POLICE STATION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR, complaint and the charge sheet filed against him in crime No.47 of 2008, now pending on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Court Kalaburagi in S.C.No.108/2016.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that, the complainant by name Mahesh lodged a complaint on 22.03.2008 alleging that at about 1.30 p.m. when he was driving a bus, a mob of about 50 to 60 persons holding deadly weapons stopped the bus and committed rioting and set fire to the bus and caused loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/- to the Government. 3
3. Based on this complaint criminal case No.47/2008 was registered against the present petitioner. FIR was registered against 46 other accused persons and after investigation charge sheet is filed against all the above 46 persons.
4. The petitioner herein was shown as absconding. Accused Nos.1 to 5, 7, 8 and 10 to 46 faced trial. The prosecution let in oral and documentary evidence in support of its case and examined 10 witnesses and relied on 11 exhibits and two material objects. On analyzing the said evidence by judgment dated 23.04.2010, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5, 7, 8 and 10 to 46 of all the charges under Section 147, 148, 341, 504, 353, 336, 308, 506, 435, 427 read with section 149 of IPC and Section 2(A) of the Karnataka Public Property Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1986.
5. Petitioner obtained anticipatory bail in Crl. Misc. No.225/2016 and appeared before the Court. At the stage 4 of hearing before charge, he has approached this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner was shown as absconding and an absconding charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, there is absolutely no material to show that any attempt was made to secure the petitioner during investigation. As on the date of the commission of the offence, the petitioner was hardly aged about 15 years. He was studying in 9th standard. His date of birth is 08.05.1993 as per the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths as well as the records maintained in his School. Under the said circumstances, the very prosecution of the petitioner before the regular Court is illegal. Further, he submits that even with regard to the merits of the case, the finding has been recorded by the Trial Court in S.C. No.307/2009 to the effect that the evidence let in by the prosecution does not establish the involvement of any of the accused in the alleged incident. 5 Under the said circumstances, no purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution of the petitioner.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was a minor as on the date of the commission of the offence in view of the unimpeachable documents produced by the petitioner before this Court. However, with regard to the merits of the case, he contends that the petitioner having not faced trial before the jurisdictional Court, the findings recorded against the co-accused persons cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.
8. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
9. Undisputedly, the offence is alleged to have taken place on 22.03.2008. The allegation made against the petitioner is that he was also one of the members of the unlawful assembly and he joined the other accused persons in setting fire to the Government bus. Accused 6 Nos.1 to 5, 7, 8 and 10 to 46 have already faced trial and have been acquitted by the Trial Court. After analyzing the evidence, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to establish the occurrence as well as the involvement of any of the above accused persons in the alleged incident. The very same witnesses are relied on by the prosecution to bring home the charge against the petitioner.
10. Having regard to the above finding, in my view, it would be a futile exercise to proceed with the trial insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. The reasoning assigned for acquittal of the above accused would certainly enure to the petition. More importantly, the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court indicate that the petitioner was a minor as on the date of the commission of the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the certified copy of the birth extract issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, TMC, Aland, wherein 7 the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 08.05.1993. The Transfer Certificate as well as the SSLC Marks Card relating to the petitioner also indicate that the petitioner herein was born on 08.05.1993. The entries contained in these documents are not disputed by the learned High Court Government Pleader.
11. In view of the juvenility of the petitioner he could be tried only before the Juvenile Court. However, having regard to the above circumstances and the long passage of time, it would be travesty of justice to direct the petitioner before the Juvenile Board, and therefore sub-serve the ends of justice. It is necessary and appropriate to close the proceedings.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 353, 308, 504, 336, 427, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 2(A) of the Karnataka Public Property Destruction and Loss of Property Act presently pending on 8 the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in S.C.No.108/2016 are hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR/LG