Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O Guralingappa Balobal vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BEN CH
ON THE 9 T H DAY OF APRI L 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K .N . PHA NEENDRA
CRL.P.No.100663/ 2018
BETWEEN :
1. BASAVARAJ S/O GURALINGA PPA BALOBAL,
AGE: 40 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O SHI GIHOLI, T Q.GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI .
2. SHANKAR S/O GURALINGAPPA BALOBAL,
AGE: 48 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O SHI GIHOLI, T Q.GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI .
3. KENCHAPPA S/ O GURALINGA PPA BALOBAL,
AGE: 63 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O SHI GIHOLI, T Q.GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI .
4. KADAPPA S/O GURALINGAPPA BALOBAL,
AGE: 61 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O SHI GIHOLI, T Q.GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI .
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.GOURISHANKAR MOT, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ANKALAGI POLI CE STATION ,
R/BY STATE PUBLI C PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, D HARWAD.
:2:
2. KADAPPA S/O BAN APPA BALOBAL,
AGE: 55 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O SHI GIHOLI, T Q.GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI .
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ANAND K .NAVALAGIMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKIN G TO QUASH THE EN TIRE PROCEEDING
FILED BEFORE ANKALAGI POLICE STATION IN
P.S .CR.NO.131/ 2016 N OW REGISTERED IN
S.C.NO.277/2017 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS /
ACCUSED NOS .1 TO 4 ON THE FILE OF THE 12 T H ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUD GE AT BELAGAVI ,
SITTING AT GOKAK U/SEC. 324, 341, 307, 504, 506
R/W 34 OF I PC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, T HE COURT MADE THE F OLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records.
2. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the charge sheet filed by the police in :3: C.C.No.1806/2017, wherein these petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The petitioners' counsel contended that, police have also filed a charge sheet against Kadappa Banappa Balobal, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in a particular case. Both the charge sheets are filed by the police with respect to the same incident occurred between the parties.
3. The allegations in both the cases are that, on 15.12.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., when petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were ploughing their land with the help of a tractor, at that time, respondent No.2 and others came to that particular spot, picked up quarrel with the petitioners and assaulted them with sickle and deadly weapons and committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 504, 506 of IPC. Petitioner :4: No.1 has lodged a complaint at 7.20 p.m. itself in the evening. With respect to the same incident, respondent No.2 has also filed a complaint making similar allegations stating that, the petitioners have actually assaulted respondent No.2 and others and the said case was also registered in Crime No.131/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 504, 506 of IPC and charge sheet has been filed later including the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends before this Court that, as the petitioners have filed a complaint earlier to that of respondent No.2, therefore, as a counter blast and in order to lay a false allegation against the petitioners, respondent No.2 has also filed a complaint against the petitioners, which requires to be quashed. It is seen from the records that, after thorough investigation, the police have filed :5: a charge sheet. The allegations of mala fides and delay in lodging the complaint, contradictions and omissions in the statement of witnesses and that, the different Investigating Officers have investigated the cases, are all the aspects that have to be taken into consideration by the competent Court while dealing with the matter either at the time of hearing the case for framing of charges or after recording of the evidence. Though the learned counsel has submitted that, even accepting the entire allegation against the petitioners, Section 307 of IPC is not attracted, however, this Court cannot go in detail to consider the same and give a finding and partial quashing of the proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners, if at all aggrieved by the charge sheet, so far as it relates to Section 307 is concerned, they can apprise the trial Court for discharge from the :6: aforesaid offence or framing of charges for appropriate provisions of penal law.
5. Under the aforesaid circumstances, when the facts are hazy, both the parties file case and counter case against each other, the truth or falsity of the allegations have to be ascertained by the trial Court. In my opinion, at this stage, this Court cannot interfere by quashing the charge sheet as prayed for by the petitioners.
6. Hence, in my opinion, petition is devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed.
7. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application for their discharge before the trial Court. In such an eventuality, the trial Court has to provide an opportunity to the State after hearing the application and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. :7:
8. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay, does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE MBS / -