Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahadevu vs State Of Karnataka By on 30 March, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
th
30
DATED THIS THE DAY OF MARCH, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3443/2011
BETWEEN:
SRI MAHADEVU
S/O LATE DUNDAMADANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT YEARS
RETIRED TEACHER, CHIEF SECRETARY
MYSORE & CHAMARAJANAGAR
NO.1121, 6
TH
MAIN, 'K' BLOCK
RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA
MYSORE
2. SRI NAGARAJU S
S/O SANNALINGA NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCCUPATION: PRINTER
RESIDING AT NO.642
METIKUPPE ROAD
HANUMANTHA NAGARA
H D KOTE TOWN
3. SRI SRINIVAS
S/O VENKATANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
OCCUPATION: TAILORING WORK
R/AT NO.1323, METIKUPPE ROAD
HANUMANTHA NAGARA
H D KOTE TOWN
2
4. SRI RAMANAYAKA
S/O CHOUDANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/AT NO.1287, METIKUPPE ROAD
HANUMANTHA NAGARA
H D KOTE TOWN
5. SRI K CHANDRA
S/O LATE KYATHANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
OCCUPATION: VEGETABLE BUSINESS
R/AT NO.13 12, METIKUPPE ROAD
H D KOTE TOWN ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI.N.Y.GURUPRAKASH,
ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
LAKSHMJIPURAM POLICE STATION
MYSORE ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SATISH R.GIRJI, HCGP.,)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED AGAINST THEM BY RESPONDENT POLICE, WHICH
IS NOW PENDING IN C.C.NO.460110 FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 353, 332, 427, 324 R/W 149
OF IPC AND SEC.2 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC
PROPERTY ACT-1981, ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC (II COURT)
AT MYSORE, FOR TRIAL BE QUASHED AND TO ACQUIT THE
PETRS. TO THE SAID CHARGES.
3
THIS CRL.P IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satish R.Girji, learned HCGP for the State/respondent.
2. It is seen that the police have filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 52 for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 353, 332, 427, 324 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 2 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1981 on the ground that the petitioners and others had gathered before the office of the Deputy Commissioner at Mysore and that during the course of their protest, they have committed the offences and they have caused simple injuries to the public servant.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no identification either by the police or identification of the accused is established during investigation. However, since the offence under Section 324 IPC is a warrant case, 4 the petitioners are at liberty to urge for their discharge before the trial Court or urge for their acquittal during trial. However the proceedings are not liable to be quashed on that ground alone.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there are only three witnesses cited in the case. However the charge sheet copy produced by the petitioner himself indicates that there are 20 witnesses for prosecution.
5. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to urge all the grounds presented before this Court.
6. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
JUDGE cp*