Karnataka High Court
Huvappa S/O Sitappa Rathod vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2019
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF APRIL, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100634/2019
BETWEEN:
HUVAPPA S/O SITAPPA RATHOD
AGE:52 YEARS, OCC:CONTRACTOR,
R/O GADDANAKERI L.T.,
BAGALKOT-587101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(BY BAGALKOT RURAL POLICE STATION BAGALKOT),
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL.SPP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
CC NO.1686/2018, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVL
JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BAGALKOT, ARISING OUT OF THE
BAGALKOT RURAL POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT, IN CRIME
NO.146/2018, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 1543, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AS
AGAINST THIS PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the petitioner's counsel. Though this matter is listed for admission, copy is also served on the Addl. SPP and hence, considered the matter on merits.
2. The petitioner who is accused No.1 before the Court below by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. prayed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against him and taking of cognizance in CC No.1686/2018 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, arising out of Bagalkot Rural Police Station, Bagalkot, in Crime No.146/2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 153, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner being the member of Zilla Panchayat gave a threat in the election campaign on 1/5/2018 that asking his volunteers to assault the congress party 3 volunteers and he will take care of them. Hence, an allegation is made that the very speech given by the petitioner amounts to disturbing the peace. Along with the complaint, CD in respect of such incident is also enclosed along with the complaint. Based on the complaint, police have registered the case for the above offences and thereafter, investigation also conducted and filed the charge sheet against this petitioner. The Court below after considering the charge sheet and other materials has taken cognizance. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The main ground urged in the petition is that the very complaint is politically motivated and nowhere in the complaint had ever stated that whether he has witnessed the incident or he has received any information to that extent by any of individuals. The statement recorded by the police is entirely different from the statement recorded by the parties. The 4 petitioner also contended that there was a delay of seven days in lodging the complaint and the said complaint is filed at the instance of some ill-wishers and therefore, the petition is liable to be quashed.
5. Petitioner's counsel also submits in his arguments that the complainant is also earlier sitting MLA and he gave the false complaint against the petitioner and false case has been registered. Further contended that the contents of the statement filed along with the charge sheet are different from the contents of the complaint. Hence, this Court has to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP would submits that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. While filing the charge sheet also, CWs.-4 to 10 are cited as eye witnesses to the incident and charge already been framed and witness summons issued to the witnesses. At this 5 juncture, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking an order of quashing of the proceedings.
7. Having heard the arguments petitioner's counsel and also learned Additional SPP and on considering the complaint averments and also the charge sheet material and statement of witnesses, a specific allegation is made against the petitioner that in election campaign, he has caused the threat and also given a call to the volunteers of the particular party to assault the volunteers belongs to another party and he will take care of them. CD is also enclosed along with the complaint and investigation has been completed and the charge sheet also filed and CWs.4 to 12 are cited as witnesses to the incident. When the charge has been framed, witness summons are issued against the witnesses and trial has been fixed, fixing the date as 18/5/2019, the present petition is filed. The order sheet discloses that the cognizance was taken on 6 16/11/2018 itself and after issuance of witness summons, the present petition is filed.
8. Having taken note of the grounds urged in the petition, the main contention that there was a delay of 7 days in filing the complaint, complaint is filed within 7 days. Police have registered the case and on the ground of delay, this Court cannot invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 468 of Cr.P.C. enables the complainant to file complaint within the time stipulated and also SHO to proceed in accordance with law when a complaint is given and the offence invoked against the petitioners is provocation to commit riot and also abusing in a filthy language and causing life threat. Hence, the delay of 7 days in filing the complaint will not come into the aid of the petitioner to quash the proceedings. The other ground urged in the petition is that the statement of eye witnesses are contrary to the contents of the complaint and this Court cannot decide 7 the issue of contrary statements made during the course of enquiry and also with regard to the contents of the complaint and the same has to be tested in trial and already witness summons has been issued and charges has been framed and trial date is also fixed. At this juncture, I do not find any reasons to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
9. For having taken note of the grounds urged in the petition and also the petitioner has approached this Court when the case is set down for evidence after issuance of witness summons, it deserves to impose the cost against the petitioner and the very approaching of this Court at the belated stage when the evidence is set down for examination of witnesses, it is nothing but an attempt to scuttle the proceedings of the trial Court. Hence, cost of Rs.2,000/- is imposed for abuse of process.
8
10. In view of the above discussions, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/-. Payment of cost is condition precedent to proceed in the case before the lower Court. Cost should be paid in favour of District Legal Services Authority, Bagalkot, and the petitioner has to produce the receipt for having paid the cost to D.L.S.A. and only on payment of cost permit the petitioner to proceed with the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE JTR/Vmb