Allowed

Balagouda Alagouda Patil v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Feb 2020CRL.P/100313/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings for kidnapping and related offenses. The court held that the act appeared to be a civil dispute regarding an agreement of sale and liability, rendering the criminal complaint unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of entire proceedings in C.C.No.714/2016 and Crime No.192/2015.

Balagouda Alagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100313/2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI BALAGOUDA ALAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SADALAGA, TQ: CHJIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶8

SHRI SAMEER BALASAHEB LOTAKAR (MESTRI) AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SADALAGA, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

SHRI YINIS ISAQ AFARAJ (MESTRI) AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SADALAGA, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

¶11

MARUTI SATAPPA KIWAD AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SADALAGA, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

……PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA CHIKODI POLICE REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DHARWAD-580001.

¶16

MAHANTESH PUNDALIK MAGADUM AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KARAGONV, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 SRI SHARAD.V.MAGADUM, ADV. FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.714/2016 PENDING BEFORE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC CHIKODI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 342, 323, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SAID CRIME.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for

¶24

quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.714/2016 pending before the Prl. Civil Judge &

¶25

JMFC, Chikodi, registered for the offences punishable

¶26

under Sections 363, 342, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶27

The case of the respondent No.2 is that he had

¶28

taken a loan from the petitioner No.1 and assuring that he would work in the shop of petitioner No.1 had executed necessary documents. After eight months he could not continue with his work due to an accident. The complainant respondent No.2 alleges that on 17.08.2015 at about 11.30 p.m., the petitioner took the complainant in his Indica Car and kept him in his farmhouse. Later his father was also brought there and both of them were assaulted however they

¶29

¶30

escaped. In furtherance thereof the complaint was filed on 23.08.2015 and registered as Crime No.192/2015 taken cognizance of the Magistrate in C.C.No.714/2016, it is this order that the petitioners have challenged in this Court.

¶31

Sri Neelendra D.Gunde, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that if at all, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent complainant is civil in nature. The allegation as regards the so called kidnap on 17.08.2015 has nothing to do with the registered agreement of sale dated 04.03.2015. It is not that the respondentcomplainant executed the agreement when he was kidnapped he therefore submits that a false case has been foisted upon the petitioners in order to over come the liability of the complainant under the agreement of sale. He further submits that when the allegation was that he was taken in a Indica car while

¶32

¶33

the recovery made was Maruti Alto car and the entire case of the prosecution is false and concocted.

¶34

On service of notice on the complainant the matter was taken up by this Court. It was submitted that the matter could be settled however today Sri Sharad.V.Magadum, appearing for the complainantrespondent No.2 would submit that the complainant is not traceable and the matter could be proceeded with. Sri Sharad.V.Magadum, learned counsel submits that the offences as made out in the complaint are proper and this Court cannot quash the same at this stage.

¶35

Heard Sri Neelendra D.Gunde, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sharad.Magadum for respondent No.2/complainant and HCGP and perused the papers.

¶36

A perusal of the complaint documents, it is sent

¶37

that even according to the complainant he had joined

¶38

¶39

the service of petitioner No.1 in January 2015. The agreement of sale has been executed on 04.03.2015 and the alleged kidnapping occurred on 17.08.2015. Thus, the kidnapping cannot be a source for the execution of sale amount nor can the joining of service in January be the cause for execution of agreement of sale. In view thereof, that the complaint appears to be one filed to get over the liabilities of the complainant-respondent No.2. If at all the complainant-respondent No.2 has any grievance as regards the registration of agreement of sale he has an efficacious remedy in filing a suit in relation there to. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint is required to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following;

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.714/2016 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC

¶42

¶43

Chikodi as also crime No.192/2015 before the Chikodi Police, are hereby quashed.

¶44

The petition is allowed accordingly.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

msr

Balagouda Alagouda Patil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balagouda Alagouda Patil 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

Shivappa S/O. Yallappa Iddalagi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Rohit @ Yuvaraj Mallappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Shivanand S/O.Gurappa Varali Vs the State of Karnataka

Ambanna S/O.Arjunappa .K. Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjappa @ Manjunath S/O Nagaraj Mudabagil Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O Basavaraj Harijan Vs State of Karnataka