Karnataka High Court
Laxman S/O Hulugappa And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 26 November, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200220/2021
BETWEEN:
1. LAXMAN S/O HULUGAPPA
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. & BUSINESS
R/O VITHAL NAGAR, TQ. MANVI
DIST. RAICHUR-584123
2. VEERESH KARATAGI
@ VEERESH S/O HONNURAPPA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O MALLANAHALLI, SALACHINMARA
TQ.KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583230
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT KALABURAGI
(THROUGH KAVITAL P.S., TQ. SIRWAR
DIST. RAICHUR-584101)
2. P.MARKANDESHA S/O MALLAPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: CLERK
R/O BAGALWAD VILLAGE
TQ. SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GURURAJ V.HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI G.B.YADAV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE SHEET IN
SPECIAL CASE (ATROCITY) NO.26/2020 (CRIME NO.98/2019),
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 304,
504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) AND 3(2)(v-a),
SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT 1989, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR ATROCITY,
RAICHUR INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the entire criminal proceedings and charge sheet in Special Case (Atrocity) No.26/2020 (Crime No.98/2019) for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 304, 504 R/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (PA) Act') pending 3 on the file of I Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Court for Atrocity, Raichur.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 06.11.2019 at about 15.40 hours, the complainant who is the son of the deceased lodged the complaint stating that on 29.10.2019 his father went to Jalhalli and Gouduru village and after finishing his work, on 30.10.2019 his father instead of going to the house at Bagalwad village, he went to Maladgudda village there he consumed alcohol in the bar and restaurant. It was stated in the complaint that deceased was lying in front of the bar and restaurant. He was lying till closure of the bar i.e., 10.30 p.m., and these accused persons have not enquired him and also not provided food and water, as a result, he died and the same is noticed on 31.10.2019 and the complainant came to know that he was abused taking his caste name and 4 accused Nos.3 and 4 dragged him out of the said place. There was ill-will in connection with complainant's brother who is the relative of accused that he was having love affair with Iramma and he took her and married her. In that connection they were having ill-will and they left the deceased at the spot saying that let him die. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act and under sections 323, 304A, 506 read with section 34 of IPC. The police have investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet against these two petitioners arraying them as accused Nos.1 and
2.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that these two petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and these petitioners were not present in the spot when the incident has taken place and apart from that, no overt act allegation is made against these petitioners in order to attract section 304 of IPC. The prosecution has to rely upon the ingredient of section 299 5 of IPC and as per the statement of witnesses, the death was due to nervousness and ill-health and there is no nexus with the petitioners to implicate them as accused persons. Only on the ground that the petitioner No.1 is the owner and petitioner No.2 is the lease holder of the bar they have been implicated in the case and in order to prosecute a criminal case there must be prima facie material against the petitioners or otherwise it amount to abuse of process which leads to miscarriage of justice and hence, it requires interference by this Court by exercising power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that even though these petitioners were not there on the spot, but on their instructions only the deceased was removed by the employees of these petitioners from the place where he was lying and not provided any food and water, as a result he succumbed to the injuries. The counsel would submit 6 that police have investigated the matter and arrayed these petitioners as accused Nos.1 and 2.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the deceased was lying at the spot for a period of 30 to 32 hours and the petitioners have not provided food and water and he was allowed to die at the spot itself, hence, the police have invoked section 304-A of IPC and hence, this Court cannot invoke power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
7. Having heard the submissions of respective counsels and on perusal of the complaint which is given after six days of the incident, no allegations are made against these two petitioners and nothing is averred in the complaint about the role of these two petitioners and apart from that none of the witnesses who gave statement before the Investigating Officer pointed out the act of these two petitioners. Though learned counsel for respondent No.2 contend that on the instructions of these 7 two petitioners, the deceased was removed from the place where he was lying in front of bar and in order to substantiate that contention also there is nothing on record. The initiation of criminal case that too for a heinous and cognizable offence is a serious matter and in order to continue the proceedings against these petitioners, in the absence of any material regarding oral statement or allegation against these petitioners about the role played by them, there cannot be any criminal prosecution against these petitioners. No doubt, the offences invoked against these petitioners are under section 304 of IPC, but the fact is that when no material is there either for instigation or for instruction or for committing any offence alleged in the chargesheet, if the proceedings is continued, it amounts to abuse of process, which leads to miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., The very contention of the respondent No.2 that they are the owners and leaseholder of the bar and restaurant cannot be a ground to prosecute these petitioners unless any 8 semblance of material is on record to show that they have played their role. I have already pointed out that none of the witnesses have spoken anything about these two petitioners and continuing of criminal proceedings amounts to miscarriage of justice.
8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The proceedings initiated against these two petitioners in Special Case No.26/2020 (Crime No.98/2019) for the offences punishable under Sections, 323, 304, 504 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a), SC/ST (PA) Act 1989, pending on the file of I Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Court for Atrocity, Raichur is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR