Karnataka High Court
Karhik S/O. J. Nagesh Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2023
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12534
CRL.P No. 100693 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100693 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
KARTHIK, S/O J. NAGESH BABU,
AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. LAL KAMAN,
NEAR WATER TANK,
BALLARI-583101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SHO,
BRUCEPET POLICE STATION, BALLARI,
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
... RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA)
M KANKUPPI
Date: 2023.10.30
10:43:08 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN THE C.C NO.704/2022
ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 290 IPC,
IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12534
CRL.P No. 100693 of 2023
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.', for short) praying to quash the charge sheet in CC No.704/2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, filed for offence punishable under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State.
3. A case came to be registered against the petitioner and another in Brucepet Police Station Crime No.146/2022 for offences under Sections 188 and 290 of IPC on the complaint of one Sri.N. Lokaraja, ASI, Brucepet Police Station, Ballari. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against this petitioner/accused No.1 and another/accused No.2 for an offence under Section 290 of IPC. In the complaint it is stated that, on 02.09.2022 at -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:12534 CRL.P No. 100693 of 2023 about 11:45pm, when the complainant was on bandobast duty on the 3rd day of Ganesha idol immersion occasion, a TATA Ace goods auto bearing registration No.KA-34/A-1339, taking Ganesha idol and two big sound boxes (DJ), was proceeding by playing music on a high volume causing disturbances to the public and on enquiry, the complainant came to know that the petitioner/accused No.1 is in-charge of Ganesha installation and the auto was driven by accused No.2. The said complaint came to be registered against this petitioner and another for offences punishable under Sections 188 and 290 of IPC. Charge sheet came to be filed for offence under Section 290 of IPC. The petitioner has sought quashing of the charge sheet in this petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that on reading of the averments of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses, one cannot be able to know, with whom the complainant and the other police witnesses enquired, who disclosed the name of this petitioner. The statements of the witnesses do not reveal the presence of this petitioner on the spot. The police have -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:12534 CRL.P No. 100693 of 2023 not intercepted the auto and not seized the same and they allowed the auto to proceed further. Even accused No.2 is not arrested. He further submits that a case comes to be registered for offences under Section 188 along with Section 290 of IPC only to get rid of getting permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and charge sheet has been filed only for offence under Section 290 of IPC. The entire charge sheet material does not attract the alleged offence under Section 290 of IPC against this petitioner. With this he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned AGA would contend that the statement of the witnesses and the averments of the complaint indicate that this petitioner was in-charge of the said Ganesha idol installation and he had obtained permission from the Dy.SP, Ballary Town Sub-Division and the charge sheet material attract the offence under Section 290 of IPC against this petitioner and another. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12534 CRL.P No. 100693 of 2023
6. The FIR came to be registered for offences under Sections 188 and 290 of IPC but the charge sheet came to be filed only for an offence under Section 290 of IPC. The charge sheet material indicate that accused No.2 was driving TATA Ace goods Auto bearing No.KA-34/A-1339 in which Ganesha idol was carried and there were two big sound box through which music was played aloud which was causing disturbance to the public. The charge sheet material does not indicate the presence of this petitioner/accused No.1 on the spot. The averments of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses do not indicate with whom the police had enquired and who disclosed the name of this petitioner, as the person in- charge of Ganesha idol installation. Apart from the police officials, there are no other witnesses. Even there is no mention that accused No.2 has disclosed the name of this petitioner. Therefore, the charge sheet material does not attract the offences under Section 290 of IPC as against this petitioner/accused No.1.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12534 CRL.P No. 100693 of 2023
7. In the result, the following order.
ORDER The petition is allowed. The charge sheet in CC No.704/2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, is quashed so far as the petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv ct:bck