Karnataka High Court
Shiva @ Shivakumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 August, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10668/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Shiva @ Shivakumar
Son of Subramanya Manikyam
Aged about 33 years, Occupation: Real Estate Business
Resident of No.1305/B, Railway Quarters
Keshvapur, Hubli
2. Srinivas @ Pinto
Son of Devaraj Dharwad
Aged about 32 years
Resident of Subhash Nagar
Keshvapur, Hubli
3. Vijayatrimurti
Son of James Talapati
Aged about 30 years
Resident of 64, Gandhiwad
Gadag Road, Hubli
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. S. Y. Shivalli, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by Suburban Police Station
Hubli, now represented by the
Additional State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building, Dharwad
2
2. Sri. Basavaraj M. Dhasconavar
Aged about 39 years
Police Constable
Badge No.1663
Suburban Police Station
Hubli.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. V. M. Banakar, Additional State Public Prosecutor for)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the entire
proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Criminal Case
No.1193/2012 (Crime No.211/2010) pending on the file of II
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate
First Class-III Court, Hubli for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324, 332, 353, 427, 504, 506(2) read with
Section 34 of the the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under
Section 3(1) of the Damage to Public Property Act.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
2. The second respondent namely, a police constable, is said to have lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging that, on 16.11.2010 at about 5.00 pm, when he was patrolli;ng with the Police Inspector and other staff members, the Police 3 Inspector had received information, that the petitioners were making a nuisance at Athithi Bar and Restaurant on Pune- Bangalore Road, Hubli, with an intention to commit the murder of Girish and another, because they owed money to the petitioners and did not return the same. When the complainant enquired about their names, they did not reveal their names and they were brought to the police station. When recording their statements, they again created nuisance by shouting at the complainant and other officers in foul language and attacked the complainant and other staff and also assaulted the complainant and broke the windowpanes. Therefore, the complainant had suffered injuries.
3. It is in that background that the case has been registered against the petitioners in Crime No.211/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 353, 332, 427, 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity) and Section 3(1) of the Damage to Public Property Act.
4
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would state as to the several infirmities, that are present in the manner in which the case has been registered. Firstly, it is contended that, if there was a Police Inspector, who along with his staff was patrolling when the incident is said to have come to light, it is hence inexplicable that the Police Inspector has not made a statement of the incident nor other witnesses, who were allegedly present on the scene etc.
5. These are all contentions, which could, at best, be set up in defence at the trial and would not be grounds for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Hence, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/-