Dismissed

Govindreddi S/O Rangappa Jayi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2019CRL.P/100190/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of an FIR alleging offences under Sections 353, 504, and 506 IPC. The court declined to quash the FIR on prima facie material and alibi defence, deeming discharge application the appropriate remedy post-charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to file application for discharge after charge sheet.

Govindreddi S/O Rangappa Jayi Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100190/2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

GOVINDREDDI S/O RANGAPPA JAYI

¶8

AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/TECHNICAL MANAGER IN HORTICULTURE DEPT., R/O: MUDENUR-591123,

¶9

TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SMT SHAILA.BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, RAMDURG POLICE STATION, BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶14

SHEKAR VITTAL HIRESOMANNAVAR AGE: YEARS, OCC: P.D.O. (PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER), R/O: MUDHOL, NOW AT MUDENUR-591123, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A i.e., FIR AND COMPLAINT BEARING RAMDURG P.S. CRIME NO.7/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 353, 504, 506 OF IPC AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN RAMDURG P.S. CRIME NO.7/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, RAMDURG.

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present petition has been filed by the

¶22

petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.7/2019 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506 of the IPC.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondentState.

¶25

The gist of the complaint is that, the

¶26

complainant was serving as a PDO in Mundenur village of Ramdurg Taluka. The petitioner/accused used to visit his office and argued with him regarding his landed properties and has also filed an application to stop illegal construction of the house, which was intended to be constructed in 10 guntas of land. On 29.11.2018,

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

the said issue was discussed in the meeting and instructed to stop the construction of the house. Thereafter, the accused started pressurizing to cancel the concerned house property extracts. In that light, on 12.12.2018, when the complainant after discharging his duties was returning to his house, the accused/petitioner along with 4-6 persons came and argued with him and on the same day he stopped him on the way and threatened him to stop illegal construction of the house and thereafter he has also abused him. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.

¶29

It is the submission of the learned counsel

¶30

for the petitioner/accused that, Annexure-B – the letter issued by the Senior Assistant, Horticulture Department, Zilla Panchayat, Ramdurg, shows that, as on the date of the alleged accident, the accused/petitioner was attended the meeting from 3.00 to 7.30 pm. That itself clearly goes to show that the

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

petitioner was not present at the place of incident and a false case has been registered against him. It is her further contention that a complaint has been registered against respondent No.2 – complainant and only with an intention to take revenge the present complaint has been filed. She further submitted that, prima facie if all the records are seen, no such alleged incident has taken place on 12.12.2018 and the complaint was got registered on 26.12.2018 and subsequently it has been registered on 16.01.2019. That itself clearly goes to show that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and the complaint has been filed after deliberations with the like minded persons. She further submitted that the said act is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶33

Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused has taken the plea of alibi. When he takes up the plea of alibi, then it is a matter of evidence. The burden is

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

there upon the accused to substantiate and prove the said fact only when the evidence has been led by the prosecution. At this juncture, it cannot be held that the petitioner was not there at the place of incident. She further submitted that the submissions which have been made require the recording of the evidence and alternatively after the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner/accused will also be having an opportunity to file an application for discharge, at which stage all these facts can be considered. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶36

I have carefully and cautiously gone through

¶37

the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

¶38

As could be seen from the records, though it

¶39

is contended that the alleged incident has taken place on 12.12.2018 and the complaint is registered on

¶40

: 6 :

¶41

26.12.2018 and the case has been registered on 16.01.2019, but it is the specific contention of the petitioner/accused that, as on the date of the alleged incident, the accused/petitioner was attending the meeting with the Senior Assistant, Horticulture Department, Zilla Panchayat, Ramdurg. That is nothing but a plea of alibi which requires to be proved by the accused. Prima facie it cannot be held that he was not present at the place of alleged incident only on the basis of Annexure-B. It is also noticed that, apart from the accused, some other accused persons were also there and they have also obstructed the complainant and they have threatened him while discharging the official duties.

¶42

Under these circumstances, the materials produced clearly goes to show that prima facie material is there as against the accused. It is well proposed principle of law that, while conducting proceedings under power Section 482, the Court will not go into the

¶43

: 7 :

¶44

merits of the case. The appropriate remedy will be only after the filing of entire charge sheet, it is for the Magistrate to consider the contentions regarding discharge therein when the accused/petitioner files an appropriate application in this behalf.

¶45

Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, with liberty to file an appropriate application in this behalf the petition is disposed of.

¶46

I.A.1/2019 is also disposed of as does not survive

¶47

for consideration.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

gab

Govindreddi S/O Rangappa Jayi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindreddi S/O Rangappa Jayi 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

The State of Karnataka Vs Mohammad Rafiq S/O Moulasab Nadaf

The Mahalingapur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs Husainsab S/O Abdulsab Raichur

State of Karnataka Vs Smt.Fatimabi M. Shaikh D/O M.A. Shaikh

Shri.Sanjay @ Nanu S/O Chandrakanth Patarkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok Kalkappa Rampur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Satyavva W/O Bhimappa Byli Vs the State of Karnataka