Karnataka High Court
Kiran S/O. Chandrappa Hirekerur vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2020
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100752/2015
BETWEEN:
Shri Kiran
s/o Chandrappa Hirekerur,
Aged 20 yrs., Occ: student
R/o Lingadahalli taluk,
Ranebennur, District Haveri.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. M.H. Patil,Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.
2. Sudha,
D/o Chandragoud Doddagoudra
Age major, Occ: student
R/o Lingadahalli, Tq. Ranebennur
Dist. Haveri.
.. Respondents
(By Sri. Praveen Uppar, HCGP for respondent No.1.
Sri. Dinesh M. Kulakarni, Advocate for respondent No.2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the charge sheet filed by PSI
Crl.P. No.100752/2015
2
Halageri PS under their PS Crime No.24/2015 for the
offences punishable under Sections 17 and 18 of POCSO Act
and Section 354A and 355 of the IPC in the interest of justice
and equity which is pending on the file of the Prl. Dist and
Sessions Judge, Haveri (Special Court) Dist. Haveri.
This Criminal Petition coming on for hearing through
physical hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petitioner, who is the sole accused in the first respondent police station Crime No.24/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'POCSO Act') and under Sections 354A and 355 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'IPC') and which matter is now said to be pending in the Court of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (Special Court), has sought for quashing the charge-sheet filed in the said crime. Crl.P. No.100752/2015 3
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant who is also the victim, is a minor girl and the accused who is her relative, was frequently troubling her and demanding her to accompany him and in that regard visiting her while she was staying and studying at Morarji Desai Residential School at Makanur and Hubballi. The accused since being the relative of the victim, elders in the family of the victim advised the accused suitably, still, he did not mend his behaviour. As such, on 02.03.2015, at about 4.30 pm when the victim, joined by others in her family, was passing infront of Sri Kumaraswamy Temple, all of a sudden, the accused appeared before them and removed his chappal that he was wearing and with that he started assaulting the victim girl and caused hurt to her. With this, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354A Crl.P. No.100752/2015 4 and 355 of IPC and under Sections 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his brief argument submitted that even if the entire charge sheet papers are taken at its face value, still, neither Section 17 nor Section 18 of the POCSO Act is attracted and at best the alleged offence may attract only Section 354 of IPC, as such, the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 in their arguments submit that the charge-sheet papers go to show that the accused has committed the alleged offence. Since the victim is a minor girl, Sections 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act is attracted.
5. A perusal of the charge-sheet papers would go to show that the allegations made against the accused, as observed above, is of pestering the victim girl Crl.P. No.100752/2015 5 to accompany him for walking (strolling) and visiting her at the place where she was pursuing her I year Pre- University in a residential Educational Institution and also on the alleged date of the incident assaulting her with the chappal. The alleged offence are primarily Sections 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act.
6. Section 17 of the POCSO Act speaks about punishment for abetment. 'Abetment of an offence' is defined under Section 16, which in the instant case is not applicable since there is no allegation of any abetment by the present petitioner. Since abetment itself is not attracted, the question of punishment under Section 17 of the POCSO Act, naturally, does not attract. Similarly, Section 18 of the POCSO Act speaks about the 'punishment for attempt to commit an offence'. Nowhere the charge-sheet mentions as to what was the attempt made by the petitioner to commit the offence. There is no allegation of any attempt to commit any Crl.P. No.100752/2015 6 specific offence but there are specific allegations of committing the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman and assaulting a woman in a public place by using criminal force without any grave provocation. As such, the filing of the charge-sheet for the alleged offence under Sections 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act since is bereft of any supporting material in the charge sheet, those two offences alleged under Sections 17 and 18 won't sustain against the petitioner. However, with respect to attraction of Section 354 (as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner), 354A and 355, it is only the competent trial Court which can decide on the said matter after a due trial since, prima facie, the charge-sheet contains the material to proceed with the accused with those offence.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. Crl.P. No.100752/2015 7
ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The offence punishable under Sections 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act alleged against the present petitioner in first respondent Police Station Crime No.24/2015 stand quashed. The charge-sheet remains for the remaining offence alleged against the petitioner/accused.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv