Karnataka High Court
Dr. Fida Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka, on 30 November, 2016
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N. Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101087/2016
BETWEEN:
DR. FIDA AHMED
S/O GULAM AHMED NAYEEK,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: DOCTOR,
RESIDING AT: KOTIGERI ONI,
HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri : R H ANGADI & H S NAYAK, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(HANAGAL POLICE STATION),
R/BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT: DHARWAD.
2. SMT.NAEK PARVIN
ABDUL KHADAR SIDENUR,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KOTIGERI ONI,
HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVEDNRA, HCGP FOR R1,
R2 - SERVED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND TO QUASH
THE ORDER OF ISSUANCE OF COGNIZANCE PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS COURT, HANAGAL IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 109 OF
2016 DATED 22.04.2016 CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 109 OF 2016, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HANAGAL, AS FAR AS THIS
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN HANAGAL POLICE STATION
CRIME NO. 131 OF 2015, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 323, 354(B), 447, 504, 506 READ
WITH 149 OF IPC AND CALL FOR RECORDS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 is by accused No.7 in CC.109/2016 registered on the basis of charge sheet which is filed pursuant to complaint registered in Crime No.131/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 354(B), 447, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. The complaint would indicate that on 2.8.2015 between 3.30 and 4.00 pm., the persons who are stated as accused in Crime No.131/2015 are said to have barged into the house of complainant and committed the aforesaid act of crime resulting in grievous injuries to him. It is 3 stated that he was immediately taken for treatment and thereafter, next day i.e., on 3.8.2015 at about 1.15 pm., he filed the complaint with Hanagal Police. Thereafter, investigation is conducted and charge sheet is also filed. In the said charge sheet, the present petitioner is referred to as accused No.7. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has come up in this petition seeking quashing of said criminal proceedings initiated against him.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned HCGP for prosecution. On going through the complaint in Crime No.131/2015 and the statement of witnesses to the incident, it is seen that there is no mention with reference to the presence of petitioner herein at the place of incident. It is stated that petitioner is a practicing doctor with BAMS qualification, a person having deep roots in the society and considered to be a respectable person. It is his grievance that his name is unnecessarily included in the charge sheet at a later state when in all the statements which are recorded immediately 4 after the incident including the complaint there is no reference to his presence.
4. On giving careful consideration to the statements and also on going through the documents, it is seen that as stated by petitioner neither the complaint which is registered roughly around 21 hours subsequent to the incident nor the statements which are recorded next day evening after the incident the presence of petitioner and there is no averment regarding his involvement in said commotion. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to accept that he was present at the place where the incident took place and that he had an active role in causing injuries to complainant as stated in complaint which is registered in Crime No.131/2015. Hence, the petition filed by him seeking quashing of aforesaid proceedings initiated against him is required to be allowed.
5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.131/2015 so far as petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed. However, this 5 order does not come in the way of prosecution in proceeding against other accused in said proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-