Dismissed

Gousemodin S/O Allauddin Makanadar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2015CRL.P/101821/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash private complaint proceedings. The Court held that since the trial has commenced and summons issued, quashing is not appropriate at this stage, and the petition is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash criminal proceedings dismissed; I.A.No.1/2015 disposed of accordingly.

Gousemodin S/O Allauddin Makanadar Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101821/2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GOUSEMODIN S/O ALLAUDDIN MAKANADAR AGE:60 YEARS OCC:TEA POWER BUSINESS R/O:KALABURGI ONI, TADAS TQ: SHIGGAON DIST:HAVERI

¶9

MEHABOOB S/O ALLAUDDIN MAKANADAR AGE:45 YEARS OCC:KIRANI SHOP R/O:KALABURGI ONI, TADAS TQ:SHIGGAON DIST:HAVERI

¶10

KHADRISAB S/O ALLAUDDIN MAKANADAR AGE:42 YEARS OCC:KIRANI SHOP R/O:KALABURGI ONI, TADAS TQ:SHIGGAON DIST:HAVERI

¶11

GARIBASHA S/O ALLAUDDIN MAKANADAR

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

AGE:40 YEARS OCC:NIL R/O:KALABURGI ONI, TADAS TQ:SHIGGAON DIST:HAVERI

¶14

JALANI S/O ALLAUDDIN MAKANADAR AGE:38 YEARS OCC:KIRANI SHOP R/O:KALABURGI ONI, TADAS TQ:SHIGGAON DIST:HAVERI

¶15

RAJAF S/O GOUSEMODIN MAKANADAR AGE:21 YEARS OCC:TEA POWDER BUSINESS R/O:KALABURGI ONI, TADAS TQ:SHIGGAON DIST:HAVERI

¶16

NADIM S/O KHADRI MAKANADAR AGE:19 YEARS OCC:DRIVER R/O:KALABURGI ONI, TADAS TQ:SHIGGAON DIST:HAVERI

¶17

MAHAMMADGOUSE S/O HAJARAT ALI DAFEDAR AGE:26 YEARS OCC:LORRY DRIVER R/O:KALABURGI ONI, TADAS TQ:SHIGGAON DIST:HAVERI

¶18

...PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI R K HATTI, ADV.)

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

AND

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ADDL SPP HIGH COURT BUIDING BENGALURU-580011

¶23

ABDUL LATIF S/O IBRAHIMSAB KOLLAPUR AGE:42 YEARS OCC:BUSINESS R/O:MADINA NAGAR, TADAS TQ:SHIGGAON DIST:HAVERI

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, COURT, SHIGGAON IN P.C.NO.24/2011(C.C.NO.333/2015) DATED 21.08.2015 AND DISMISS THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO.24/2011 U/SEC 323, 324, 451, 452, 427, 506 143, 147, R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶27

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

¶30

Nos.1 to 8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in P.C.No.24/2011

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

(C.C.No.333/2015) and dismiss the private complaint No.24/2011 registered for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 451, 452, 427, 506, 143, 147 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶33

Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that the complaint was registered in Crime No.47/2011 for the said offences. Thereafter, the said private complaint referred to PSI, Shiggaon, for investigation, the Police have furnished “B” false report. Thereafter, learned Magistrate taken cognizance against the petitioners and complaint filed by the complainant under Section 307 of IPC is dismissed. On an earlier occasion, respondent has also filed P.C.No.42/2009 before the JMFC Court at Shiggaon and the said matter was also referred for investigation to CPI, Shiggaon, and Police have filed “B” report. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners and Police have filed the charge sheet in S.C.No.37/2012, same is

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

pending before the District and Sessions Judge at Haveri. Now the Sessions Judge has also issued summons to the petitioners to adduce evidence before the District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, and the case is posted on 25.10.2014, the complainant is taking adjournment and case is pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Haveri.

¶36

The incident is of the year 2011, hence, entire proceedings are vitiated. Learned Magistrate has referred P.C.No.24/2011 to the Police, police have registered a case. After investigation, the Police have filed “B” false report. Police have also filed the charge sheet in S.C.No.37/2012. The trial has commenced in S.C.No.37/2012 in the year 2014 itself, but it is not yet concluded.

¶37

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶38

appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 8 and

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners has

¶42

submitted that though the summons was issued to the complainant in the year 2014 itself, but, is not ready to come before the Court to give evidence, because of that reason, matter is unnecessarily dragged on and petitioners have to unnecessarily attend the said Court and there is no progress in the matter. Hence, submitted that because of such delay in the matter and in other crime numbers, Police have already filed ‘B’ summary report, hence, the proceedings are to be quashed.

¶43

Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted

¶44

that all the matters are not one and the same, one offence is of the year 2008 and another incident, which is alleged, is in the year 2011, and hence they are two

¶45

: 7 :

¶46

independent cases, which cannot be said that they are one and the same. It is also his contention that witness summons is already issued and the trial has already commenced and the Sessions case is of the year 2011, hence, it is his contention that petition itself is not maintainable and same may be dismissed.

¶47

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash of the private complaint in P.C.No.24/2011.

¶48

Looking to the averments made in the

¶49

petition, the private complaint is of the year 2011 and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners itself, the trial has commenced, witness summons have also been issued in the case. When that is the case, the petitioners have to take steps before the said Sessions Court bringing to the notice of the said Court, if at all the complainant is not ready to appear before the said

¶50

: 8 :

¶51

Court to give his evidence, then they have to make their submission, which has to be taken into consideration by the said Court trying the matter.

¶52

When the offence is of the year 2011 and

¶53

when the trial proceedings are already commenced and witness summons already issued, at this stage, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere and to stay the proceedings. Hence, there is no merit in this petition and same is hereby rejected.

¶54

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2015 does not survive for consideration, accordingly, it is disposed of.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

BSR

Gousemodin S/O Allauddin Makanadar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gousemodin S/O Allauddin Makanadar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Ganesh S/O Ramappa Kenchangoudar @ Reddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Anjaneyalu S/O B.Giddayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhimappa S/O Lakkappa Uppar Vs State of Karnataka

Khaja Modin S/O Noor Ahmed Khazi Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Manjunatha S/O Krishna Gouda Vs the State Represented by Psi

Basavaraj S/O.Nagapap Garag Vs Arunkumar Called Himself as