Girimallayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2010

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Girimallayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2010

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 1-ST DAY OF APRIL, 20_1.Qﬁ"    3

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHDKB, HIN;cIIIGI1:RI--i'«' 

CRIMINAL PETITION Nd'.«8O8.?./20(59_--._T' '~ . «. " 

CRIMINAL PETITION_NO.7159./2010;  
IN CRL.P.8O87/2OO9: . i A'

BETWEEN:

Girmallayya,    H  _   

S/0 Karabassafj/ya;:j1\,~*Iathacl,ii  4'   

Age 55 years,"  _ 1  '    »

Occ: Advocaie, I-:_{_ig_h C'(;urVt;A..V'I_- «_  

R / 0  

Tq: Dharwad. . i'  ii    '

Dist: Dhasjwad.  *   PETITIONER

(By Sn' Shivairaji'; .MuciiadI'; Adv.)

         

i  _'iThei_SI£a:te ~v4Kaar_rfIataka,

Thr01;gh"JavrrI1<;iqiandi Town Poiice,
Represenfred" by SPP,
High"Court 'Circuit Bench,

 .  '=.,Dharwag:1;';.  RESPONDENT

¥]"(i3y: Sr; Vinayak s. Ku1karni,HCGP.)

This criminal petition is filed under section 482 of

  -'Cri.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceeding so far as it



relates to the petitioner (accused no.3) in C.C.No.2l4/2008
pending on the file of the I Addl. J MFC, J arnkhandi.

IN CRL.P.7159/2010:
BETWEEN:

Ravindra Basavaraj Yadahalli,
Age 35 years,
Occ: Advocate,

R/ O Chanamanagar Jarnkhandi.   "V

(By Sri M.C. Hukkeri, Adv.)
AND:

The State of Karnataka, ' 'A e     
Through JamkhandiTowVn_"Polioe, L  l
Represented by     
High Court Ci:'cui'i;.t.Benc--h, i  -  

Dharwad, 1-     " F.   . RESPONDENT
(By Sri_.'!i--naya~k 'S;1--1;{u1karni;HCG_Pr).3

'1'his« crirriinala "p.etitio'1i  ﬁled under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying' to"qu_ash' entire proceeding so far as it
relates totlthe petitione1ﬁ[a~ccused no.4) in C.C.No.2l4/2008
pending on the tile (of the i Addl. JMFC, Jarnkhandi.

-  These Agcriminalpetitions coming on for admission this

» day,' the eoi.1vrt~n'1ade the following common order:

ORDER

In 'both the petitions, the petitioners (accused nos.3 V. and 4)have sought the quashing of the proceedings in ll"C."C';No.214/2008 pending on the file of the I Addl. JMFC, "-tillamkhandi, in so far as they pertain to them. As per the 433%;

Lo) charge sheet, the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 142, 147' and 323 Section 149 of IPC and Section 126 of the Repre_sei?1'tat:ion'l.o-fl_ _ People Act, 1951.

2. The learned counsel ia'fori%_ithe Crl.P.No.8087/O9, Sri Shivaraj--.,1§L'~..NIudhoE_ S'd,V'IA)i1'i'.:1ité~:iVV4't'F1'z'1t'i:thE: " V prime accused, namely, accuse;i"1'$toi;_:i--iSiddu Nyva.m..aéowda is left out from the array persons while submitting the charge the complaint allegations and Sicldu Nyamago--wdau,:"viihatgthe-poiliiceii iiiaixzeitlone amounts to hostile discriniiinatioiiiv :0thv4erii.:_g'i*--ievance is that the prosecution witnesses are 'at: 1 employees.

Sriill/l';«Q_.___Hukkeri, the learned counsel for the 'peti'ti0ne_;*in'~the.__connected petition Crl.P.7159/2010 adopts the Sri Muclhol.

it iSri A. R. Patil, the learned Aclcll. SPP submits A f1"that"'--tphe exclusion of Siddu Nyamagowcla is based on the ' outcome of the investigation done by the police. He further 33%.

submits that there is no evidence whatsoever as against Siddu Nymagowda.

5. On the ground of exclusion of person from the array of the accused pers.oni's,Wfthe'r other accused persons cannot demand tzhatfthe pro'ceedings.p he dropped or the complaint beii_q'uashed.v- in respeet~--o.f" them also. On holding the investigati_Qn",=if the police formiithe View that a particular person.has7n0t'cotninit'ted the offence or that there is no evidence iagai_nlstV_ indicative of committing any offerice 'by other accused persons cannot has to be shown as an accused; in 'thteli'c:i'1»argel ' That apart, the Court is clothed with the tolproceed against other persons (not being;the~ accusedlpappearing to be guilty of the offence. :'Se"ct_ion 319 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"~"'£i'§1f.?.;pjPoraver to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.- § Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for F!§3~€..

which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed.» against such person for the offence he appears to have committed.

7. It is open to a party be.fo.re ix application by invoking Section appropriate stage.

8. That the ;__'prosecutionﬁwitnesses fgire all government employees ground for demanding that'ti;£f:'. iiThe petitioners have full oppo4rtiiiini,~ty.. it)'7.3.;-osgs~exan1irie the prosecution witnesses and adducfe.Vthe:i.ri[petitioners') evidence also.

9. In the itresult,ii'not,iﬁnding any ground for my interference in'~exercise.. of the power under Section 482 of Cr'.~§?.C.;'«.I_ dieiniee"-~.these petitions. However, liberty is reser\i}iedi"it.o« tVhei"_'v_petiti'o.ners to make applications for their V dischargeifroni thcfproceedings. Sd/-

FUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court