Ningappa Yellappa Shiddanagoudar @ ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ningappa Yellappa Shiddanagoudar @ ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2013

Bench: N. Ananda

                                1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
       DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
                            BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.11016/2012
BETWEEN:
1.  Ningappa Yellappa Shiddanagoudar @ Doddanagoudar
    Age: 42 years
    Occ: Service in Indian Army
    R/o. Mutawad, present address behind
    Sangam Talkies, Bailhongal, District: Belgaum.

2.    Shivanand Yellappa Talawar
      Age: 43 years
      Occ: Service in Indian Army
      R/o. Marakumbi Village, Taluk: Saundatti
      District: Belgaum.                      ...Petitioners

(By Sri M.B.Gundawade, Advocate)

AND:
The State of Karnataka
Through Bailhongal Police Station
Rep. by SPP.                                       ...Respondent

(By Sri Vinayak S.Kulkarni, HCGP)

       This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to
quash the proceedings initiated in Crime No.163/2010 by
Bailhongal Police for an offence punishable under section 160 IPC,
on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC at Bailhongal & etc.

      This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the court
made the following:
                               2


                            ORDER

This petition is filed to quash the chargesheet filed in Crime No.163/2010, wherein petitioners are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 160 IPC.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties.

3. Sri M.B.Gundawade, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the contents of investigation records accepted on their face value do not constitute an offence punishable under section 160 IPC, for the simple reason that investigation records do not disclose that petitioners were fighting in public place.

4. The learned counsel for petitioners, relying on a decision of this court, reported in 1971 Crl.L.J. 1041 (in the case of M.Korga Shetty & another Vs. The State of Mysore) would submit that mere quarrelling or abusing in a street without exchange of blows is not sufficient to attract an offence punishable under section 160 IPC. 3

5. In first information report and statements of witnesses, it is clearly stated that petitioners were physically fighting in a public place and disturbing public peace and tranquillity.

6. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the chargesheet and impugned proceedings. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE SNN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court