Karnataka High Court
Mr. Praveen Kumar @ Praveen vs State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2036 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
Mr.Praveen Kumar @ Praveen
S/o N.Narayanappa
Aged about 24 years
No.63, R.S.Palya
M.S.Nagar
Bengaluru - 560 033.
... PETITIONER
(By Smt.Rupa B.P., Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Sampigehalli Police Station
Sampigehalli Sub Division
Bangalore - 560 077.
2. P.Spandana
D/o Prakash
Aged about 22 years
Residing at
Thanisandra Main Road
Rachenahalli, Sannapa Layout
A.C.Post, Bangalore - 77.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.Sandesh J.Chouta, SPP-II for Respondent No.1)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the charge sheet in
Cr.No.124/2015 and proceedings in S.C.No.1118/2015 on
the file of the 53rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore (CCH-54) for the offences punishable under
Sections 328, 376, 354C, 384, 506, 201 of IPC and
Sections 66A, 66B, 67B of I.T.Act, 2000 and etc.
This Criminal Petition, coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Smt.Rupa B.V., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Sandesh J.Chouta, learned SPP-II appearing for State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner herein who has been arrayed as the sole accused in S.C.No.1118/2015 is seeking for quashing of the proceedings pending on the file of 53rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-54) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 376, 354C, 384, 506, 201 of IPC and Sections 66A, 66B and 67A of I.T.Act, 2000.
3. Having heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned SPP-II for State and on perusal of records, it would disclose that 2nd respondent herein 3 lodged a complaint before Sampigehalli Police Station alleging that she has been sexually harassed after she was put under intoxication and accused has taken her nude photographs and hosted the same on the social media and as such, she sought for suitable action being taken against petitioner. Said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.124/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354C, 384 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed as already noticed hereinabove. Subsequently, charge has been framed by the jurisdictional Sessions Court and two witnesses on behalf of prosecution has been examined and at that stage, petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings contending inter alia that material on record would disclose that allegation made against him in the complaint is false and evidence sought to be tendered on behalf of the prosecution itself would indicate that from the mobile phone of the complainant herself, she had uploaded the photographs in the social media and no act as alleged in the complaint is attributable to the accused-petitioner. 4
4. As rightly contended by SPP-II appearing for 1st respondent-State, at this stage the evidence tendered by the prosecution cannot be evaluated by this Court that too in extraordinary jurisdiction, particularly, when the trial is in progress.
5. Petitioner having not challenged the framing of charge and having appeared before the jurisdictional Sessions Court and prosecuted the case by submitting his defence and also by cross-examining prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for exercising of extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, particularly, when trial is in progress. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for interference. No grounds. Hence, Criminal Petition is hereby rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE Prs*