Karnataka High Court
Laxman Mahadevappa Kamannavar vs State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10722/2012
BETWEEN:
Shri. Laxman Mahadevappa Kamannavar
Age: 21 years, Occ: Student
R/o. Katakol, Tq: Ramdurg
...PETITIONER
(By Sri. R. K. Kulkarni, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by Circle Police Inspector, Jamkhandi
Dist: Bagalkot
2. Kumari Spurthy
D/o. Veeresh Girimallannavar
Age: 20 years, Occ: Student
R/o. Durga Colony Maigur Road
Jamkhandi, Dist: Bagalkot
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. P. H. Gotkhindi, HCGP for R1)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the
entire proceedings by quashing the charge sheet submitted
by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under
Sections 292, 376, 448, 511, 506 and 509 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for
brevity) in S.C.No.20/2011 on the file of the Fast Track
Court, Jamkhandi Dist., Bagalkot, by allowing the petition.
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. There are serious allegations made against the petitioner by the complainant, of repeated attempts of rape and the petitioner having misused certain nude pictures, that he had obtained of the complainant, which were used against her, to compel her to grant him sexual favours and that, he had even attempted to rape her, while she was having a bath on one occasion. It is on these allegations, that the petitioner was charge sheeted.
3. The petitioner was earlier before this Court to contend that, the very allegations in the complaint would not disclose the offences that are sought to be foisted against the petitioner. It is on being appraised of the allegations in the complaint and the several offences, which were urged in the complaint, that this Court had directed the trial Court to afford an opportunity to the petitioner, to be heard before framing of charge. The petitioner has been heard and the 3 Court below has rejected his application. It is in that background that the present petition is filed.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that, the petitioner is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 292, 448, 376, 511, 505 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity), which is wholly improbable on the basis of the allegations in his complaint. This having been brought to the attention of this Court and this Court on being satisfied that, there was a case for the petitioner to be heard before framing of charges and the Court below also having been appraised, twice over, of the absence of the ingredients of the offences that are alleged, it has yet proceeded to reject the application for dicharge. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit, this would result in a miscarriage of justice, as the petitioner would now have to face a prolonged trial, even though there is no prima facie case against the petitioner, even on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint.
4
5. The learned Government Pleader would point out that, there are allegations against the petitioner and the stage being for framing of charges, it is in the discretion of the Court to frame appropriate charges and it is not incumbent on the Court below to reiterate the very provisions, which have been recited in the charge sheet, since the Court is the ultimate judge of the relevant provisions, under which, the charges could be framed. Since the charges are yet to be framed, it is premature for the petitioner to make a grievance that the several provisions, which have been quoted, cannot be attracted on the basis of the allegations in the complaint.
6. The learned Government Pleader would point out that, there are other offences, which can certainly be established on the basis of the allegations in the complaint and it is therefore, for the trial Court to frame appropriate charges and the petitioner would have ample opportunity to raise his defence appropriately. Hence, there is no warrant for interference at this stage, as the petitioner has been heard as regards his contention that the ingredients of all 5 the offences, of which he has been accused, are not present in the complaint.
7. Having regard to the above circumstances, it is for the trial Court to apply its mind in framing the charges, as to which are the relevant provisions, under which the petitioner could be charged and merely because the charge sheet has recited various provisions, it would not follow that the trial Court could invoke all the said provisions.
8. At this point of time, it is not proper for this Court to interfere and hear the proceedings at the instance of the petitioner. For there may be other offences, which could yet be established against the petitioner.
Therefore, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/-