Karnataka High Court
Santosh And Ors vs Mala And Anr on 30 November, 2022
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200192/2022
BETWEEN:
01. SANTOSH S/O RAMESH TELI,
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
02. SANGEETA W/O SANTOSH TELI
AGE: 33 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
03. SATISH S/O RAMESH TELI
AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
04. MAHANTESH S/O IRASANGAPPA TELI
AGE: 31 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLLAGE
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
05. RAMESH S/O MALLAPPA TELI
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
06. MAHADEVI W/O RAMESH TELI
AGE: 55 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
07. GANGAWWA W/O IRASANGAPPA TELI
AGE: 55 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
2
08. MAHESH S/O IRASANGAPPA TELI
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR--586 101.
09. IRASANGAPPA S/O MALLAPPA TELI
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
10. SUVARNA W/O MAHESH TELI
AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. MALA W/O UMESH HABBI
AGE: 44 YEARS OCC: COOLIE
R/O: KHAKANDAKI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
02. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 106.
... RESPONDENTS
(BYSRI.SHIVANAND V.PATTANASHETTI,ADVOCATEFORR1
SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.48/2019 FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307,
354, 504 AND 506 (2) READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.48/2019 pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura.
02. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners is that in respect of the very same incident the police have registered a case in Crime No.42/2016 on 11.02.2016 and subsequently filed charge- sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 355, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. He contends that the said case is pending in C.C.No.3469/2016 before the II Additional JMFC Court at Vijayapura and therefore, two cases cannot run parallel to each other in respect of the same incident, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 4
03. The facts leading to filing of this petition is as under:-
The complainant by name Mala wife of Umesh Hebbi lodged a complaint to respondent - police on 11.02.2016, which was registered in Crime No.42/2016 of Babaleshwar Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 4. She has alleged that on 09.02.2016 at about 11.00 a.m. when her daughter by name Raksha was playing infront of the house of accused No.1 - Santosh, she was abused and assaulted by accused No.2, wife of Santosh. When her grandmother questioned accused No.2 as to why she has assaulted her, she was abused by accused No.2 and later at 05.00 p.m. all the accused trespassed into their house and assaulted the complainant with chappal and they have also assaulted her mother - Gangawwa and his son - Sangamesh etc.,
04. The complainant filed a private complaint in respect of the very same incident against ten accused persons on 03.03.2016 narrating more events and also alleging that the police have not recorded her complaint 5 properly and not received the complaint immediately. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. Since, offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, is triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, which is now pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Vijayapura.
05. The learned counsel on both side submit that there is a counter complaint registered against the complainant herein which is now pending before the II Additional JMFC at Vijayapura.
06. The materials on record would disclose that the case which is now pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Vijayapura in S.C.No.48/2019, is comprehensive in nature, which is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant. It is also not in dispute that both the cases which are now pending in S.C.No.48/2019 before the 6 Sessions Court as well as in C.C.No.3469/2016 pending before the II Additional JMFC, at Vijayapura, arise out of one and the same incident.
07. The prayer of the petitioners to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.48/2019 pending on the file of Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Vijayapur, cannot be allowed, since the said case is comprehensive in nature and there are more accused who are facing trial and one of the offence alleged is under Section 307 of IPC. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for adding Section 302 of IPC, since the injured by name Bourawwa succumbed to the injuries subsequently. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that, the death of Bourawwa has no nexus with the injuries sustained by her, because she died after more than one year of the incident. However, that question cannot be gone into in this case. However, considering that both the cases arise out the same incident and two 7 separate trials cannot be held in different Courts, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate by filing necessary application by bringing to the notice about the pendency of case in the Court of Sessions, arising out of same incident and for appropriate orders. The same is necessary since there is even a counter case pending before the learned Magistrate arising out of FIR No.43/2016 of Babaleshwar Police Station, pending in C.C.No.3463/2016. If such an application filed, necessary orders shall be passed in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.
All contentions of both the parties are kept open. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and hence, same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ