High Court disposed of a Criminal Petition under S. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings due to alleged false case and alibi. Court held that since proceedings were nascent and an alternative remedy existed before the trial court, the petition was disposed of without prejudice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15141/2013
BETWEEN:
2
(By Shri Ganesh Naik, Advocate)
AND:
(By Shri Sanjay A Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor for Respondent no.1)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying to quash the entire proceedings and discharge the petitioners in the crime No.109/2012 of the Mannaekhalli Police Station Taluka Humnabad in private complaint No.81/2012 pending before the
3
Prl. JMFC at Humnabad, and also grant such other reliefs as the Honourable Court Deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following :-
ORDER
Heard the Counsel for the petitioners.
under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the
‘IPC’, for brevity) . The petitioners seek to make out a case by contending that if all the allegations in the complaint are accepted, no case would be made out against the petitioners and that it is a false case that is sought to be foisted against them, as
the petitioners have a watertight alibi, in that, they were residing at Bangalore during the alleged time of the incident and hence the same cannot be sustained.
4
the proceedings are at a nascent stage before the trial court and yet to attain the stage where the petitioners would be heard before framing of the charge. Hence, even if the petitioners have a good case on merits seeking such discharge or warranting the questioning of the entire proceedings, it would be appropriate if the petitioners should avail of the alternative remedy available to him before the trial court itself at the appropriate stage. In order to quash the proceedings at the instance of the petitioners, it would be necessary for this court to call for the records and scrutinise the same, even to address the claim of the petitioners. This exercise would stall the proceedings before the court below and this ought not to be. Since the petitioners have an alternative remedy before the trial court and since the trial court is in a more vantageous position to address the case of the petitioners with reference to the record, it is appropriate that the petitioners seek their remedy before the court below.
5
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of, without
prejudice to the case of the petitioners.
JUDGE
nv
Laxman S/o Gundappa
Kalamma D/o Gundappa
Shekontala D/o Arjun
Dropathi W/o Laxman
Priynaka D/o Laxman
The State of Karnataka Through The P.S.I Mannaekhellli
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
