Karnataka High Court
Sri B Paneesh Kumar vs State By on 21 June, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6347/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI B PANEESH KUMAR
S/O M B BASAVARAJ URS
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ADVOCATE NO.123,11TH MAIN
OPPOSITE KSFC OFFICE
KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSORE-570 009
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE BY
LAXMIPURAM POLICE STATION
MYSORE-570 009
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
2 . SRI M S RAJASHEKAR RAJU
S/O SHANKARANARAYANA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
NO.12,BLOCK 16, SBM COLONY
SRIRAMPURAM II STAGE
MYSORE-570 009
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY ,HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
22.04.2017 FILED BY THE LAXMIPURAM POLICE IN
C.C.NO.2426/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE /U/S 419,420 R.W
34 OF IPC AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENT ORDER
DATED 7.06.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, MYSORE TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 419,420 R/W 34 OF IPC PURPORTING TO
BE ACTING U/S 190(i)(b) OF CRPC AT ANNEXURE-B IN SO
FAR AS THIS PETITION (ACCUSED NO.5) IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
FIR was lodged by second respondent alleging that Manjunath.P s/o C.D.Muralidhar against whom CC No.520/2011 was initiated by the complainant has been arraigned as accused No.4 in the said proceedings. It is further alleged that Manjunath.P had filed O.S.No.258/2011, wherein he has described himself as P.Manjunath s/o Puttaswamy R/o Hadajana Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk and is also alleged that both the persons are one and the same and also alleged that he is also holding two Aadhar cards in the said names and thereby cheated the police department as well as the Court. It is also alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 are 3 subjecting him to cruelty mentally. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 and also arraigned the present petitioner as accused No.5 on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 to 3 who have stated that on the advise of the petitioner-accused No.5 they have given false statement before the Court. Learned magistrate accepted the charge sheet and took cognizance for the offence under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued summons. Taking exceptional case, the accused No.5 is before this Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.5 in the charge sheet only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and in the absence of any corroborative material, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.5 is without any substance.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP appearing for State 4 would submit that accused Nos.1 to 4 have given false statement before the Court on the advise given by the petitioner-accused No.5 and the police have rightly filed the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused and the same cannot be faulted with and sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. FIR was lodged by the second respondent against the accused Nos.1 to 4 alleging that by creating documents they have given false statement before the Court. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.5 on the basis of voluntary statement given by accused Nos.1 to 3 who have stated that they have given false statement on the advice given by the petitioner-accused No.5 who is an advocate by profession.
6. Section 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 specifies that statement of an accomplice of co- 5 accused is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars.
7. In the present case, except the statement of co-accused there is no corroborative material to substantiate the allegation that the accused Nos.1 to 3 gave false statement before the Court on the advice of the petitioner-accused No.5. Hence, in the absence of any corroborative material, the filing of charge sheet only on the basis of the voluntary statement of co-accused is impermissible and the same requires interference.
8. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2426/2017 pending on the file of the I Addl. Civil judge and JMFC, Mysore insofar as it relates to petitioner-accused No.5 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS