Dismissed

Lakkappa S/O Peerappa Gudadar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2018CRL.P/101043/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition challenging prosecution for offenses under IPC Sections 447 and 307 via Section 482 CPC. Court rejected abuse of process claim, rejecting arguments regarding witness identification changes and noting available discharge remedy in trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking quashing of proceedings was dismissed; I.A. No. 1 of 2018 disposed of as not surviving.

Lakkappa S/O Peerappa Gudadar Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101043 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LAKKAPPA S/O PEERAPPA GUDADAR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAKANUR VILLAGE, TQ JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri. D.M.MALLI ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH JAMAKHANDI RURAL POLICE STATION, THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶12

SAIDUSAB S/O NABISAB NADAF AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAKANUR VILLAGE, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 447 & 307 OF IPC IN SC.NO.14/2018 PENDING

¶15

: 2 : Crl.P. No.101043/2018

¶16

ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI IN JAMAKHANDI RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.144/2017 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶17

This Petition coming on for Admission , this day the Court made the following:-

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioner is seeking quashing of the

¶20

proceedings in S.C. No.14/2018 pending before the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, sitting at Jamakhandi. The said case arises out of the chargesheet filed by Jamkhandi Police in Crime No.144/2017.

¶21

It is alleged that the petitioner was suspecting that the victim CW-6 is having illicit relationship with his wife. It is further alleged that CW-6 had not changed his conduct despite warning and being enraged by that on 11.09.2017 at 05.30 p.m. in the victim’s farm situated at Jakanur village, the petitioner assaulted the victim with sickle and caused him grievous injuries and attempted to commit his murder.

¶22

: 3 : Crl.P. No.101043/2018

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the first instance the name of the petitioner is not revealed as the culprit. He further submits that initially in the complaint, the complainant stated one Gireppa Bhimappa Hunashikatti named in the complaint as the person who comes to the scene of offence after the incident, but in the chargesheet, he has been cited as eye-witness. He further submits that the wife of the accused is not shown as eye-witness or to prove the motive, thus, his trial before the Sessions Court is abuse of process of Court causing him injustice.

¶24

Learned HCGP submits that there is statement of the victim to implicate the petitioner and if at all the petitioner feels that there is no material against him, then it is open for him to seek discharge before the Sessions Court.

¶25

The powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked only if the Court is satisfied that there is abuse of process

¶26

: 4 : Crl.P. No.101043/2018

¶27

of Court and continuation of proceedings before the Court amounts to grave injustice to a party.

¶28

In this case, after investigation charge sheet is filed and the Magistrate has taken cognizance. The charge-sheet is filed on 27.11.2017 and after committal, the present case is filed. Charge sheet records contain statement of the victim purportedly recorded on the very next day of the incident. The petitioner is not dragged to the Court by any extra legal method. Therefore, there is no abuse of process of Court or failure of justice to the petitioner. If at all there are grounds to seek discharge, it is open to the petitioner to seek such remedy before the trial court. The petition is dismissed.

¶29

I.A. No.1 of 2018 does not survive for

¶30

consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.

¶31

SD/JUDGE

¶32

RK/-

Lakkappa S/O Peerappa Gudadar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakkappa S/O Peerappa Gudadar v. the 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. Ranganayak S/O Ramanjanalu Tapela Vs the State

Shivanand Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju S S/O Babu Salunke Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagendra S/O. Satteppa Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

Praveen S/O. Maruti Lohar Vs the State of Karnataka

Priya Mangalamukhi @ Mehaboob Adoni Vs the State of Karnataka