Karnataka High Court
Smt. Chandu Poojarthi vs State Of Karnataka on 14 August, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2831 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHANDU POOJARTHI
D/O. LATE MANJI POOJARTHI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. SMT. SHANTHA
D/O. CHANDU POOJARTHI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
3. SRI JAGADISH
S/O. CHANDU POOJARTHI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOLEMAGE,
MAKKIMANE,
HAKLADY VILLAGE & POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
...PETITIONERS
(BY MS. SURABHI SRINIVAS, ADV., FOR
SRI HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY S.H.O.
GANGOLLI P.S.,
KUNDAPURA,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
2
2. SMT. MACHI POOJARTHI
W/O. SUBBAYYA POOJARY,
HOLEMAGE,
MAKKIMANE,
HAKLADY VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, S.P.P. - II, FOR R-1 &
SRI VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, ADV., FOR R-2)
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.552
OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., KUNDAPURA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying the Court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.552 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundapura, initiated against the petitioners.
3
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition is that respondent No.2, Smt. Machi Poojarthi, filed a complaint before respondent No.1 alleging there was civil dispute related to property between the families of respondent No.2 - complainant and the petitioners. On 6-1-2015, at about 10:00 a.m., petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were installing motor pipe to the well belonging to the petitioners. At that time, respondent No.2 entered premises of the petitioners along with Smt. Akkayya and asked the petitioners to stop the installation work, since there is dispute in the said property. Suddenly, petitioner No.1 assaulted Smt. Akkayya and respondent No.2 with wooden stick. Due to this incident, respondent No.2 suffered injury. Petitioner No.3, who is staying at Bengaluru, threatened the complainant that for any reason they do not give any share of the property to respondent No.2 and her family and instigated petitioner 4 Nos.1 and 2 not to allow the complainant to enter the premises of the petitioners. On the basis of said complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.3 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Being aggrieved by the same and challenging the legality of the proceedings, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court in this petition.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 to 3, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 so also the learned State Public Prosecutor - 2 for the respondent - State.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made the submission that regarding incident, petitioners filed complaint against respondent No.2 and others on 5 7-1-2015, i.e. much earlier to the complaint filed by respondent No.2. Hence, she made the submission that subsequently respondent No.2 filed the present complaint. Therefore, she made the submission that by way of counter blast filed by the petitioners; said complaint has been filed by making false allegations. She further submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the property and it is respondent No.2 and her supporters tried to criminally trespass into the property. So far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, learned counsel made the submission that he was not at all present at the spot and he was at Bengaluru. Hence, she made the submission that looking to these material, there is no case made out by respondent No.2 as against the petitioners. Hence, she submitted to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.
6
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant submitted that there are injuries caused to respondent No.2 and Smt. Akkayya and they were admitted to the hospital. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the complaint and made submission that statement in the complaint was recorded when complainant and Smt. Akkayya were getting treatment in the hospital. Further, he submitted that investigation is carried out and now charge-sheet is filed for both side. Hence, there is no merit in this petition and same requires to be rejected.
7. Learned State Public Prosecutor - II appearing for the respondent - State made the submission that since there is a case and counter case registered and now charge-sheet is filed against both side, he submitted to reject the petition.
7
8. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, F.I.R., complaint and other material produced in the case.
Looking to the contention of the petitioners herein, it is the case and counter case. Therefore, presence of petitioners No.1 and 2 is admitted. Regarding petitioner No.3 is concerned, it is contended that he was not present at the spot. Therefore, when the presence of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 at the spot is admitted and there is a case and counter case took place at the same time, date and place, the only question now for the Court below is to find out the aggressors, who were responsible for initiation of the incident. As such, it will be done after recording the evidence and during the trial. Though petitioner No.3 was not present at the spot, but he instigated petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to commit the said offences as alleged. Therefore, accordingly, alleged offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is also inserted. Perusing these 8 material and when investigation material were already before the Court, there is prima-facie case. Therefore, it cannot be held that F.I.R. and complaint are without any prima-facie material and only with malafide intention. Hence, it is not a case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk