Partly allowed

Laxman S/O Govind Tukkare v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2020CRL.P/101261/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a criminal petition filed to quash proceedings in a case involving assault and insult arising from a boundary dispute. The court held that the charge sheet lacked materials to attract Section 324 IPC as no dangerous weapon was used. The charge under 324 was quashed, while others remain.

What did the court decide?

The offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 1233 of 2017 is quashed. The rest of the offences remain unaltered.

Laxman S/O Govind Tukkare Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101261/2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

Laxman s/o Govind Tukkare, Age:63 years, occ.: Agriculture, r/o Ganeshwadi, Tq: Gokak, dist: Belagavi.

¶8

Hanamant s/o Laxman Tukkare, Age:32 years, occ.: Agriculture, r/o Ganeshwadi, Tq: Gokak, dist: Belagavi.

¶9

Santosh s/o Laxman Tukkare, Age:26 years, occ.: Advocate, r/o Ganeshwadi, Tq: Gokak, dist: Belagavi.

¶10

Ravi s/o Laxman Tukkare, Age:24 years, occ.: Agriculture, r/o Ganeshwadi, Tq: Gokak, dist: Belagavi.

¶11

Sadashiva s/o Govind Tukkare, Age:53 years, occ.: Agriculture, r/o Ganeshwadi, Tq: Gokak, dist: Belagavi.

¶12

Maruti s/o Sadashiva Tukkare,

¶13

: 2 : CRL P NO.101261/2017

¶14

Age:24 years, occ.: Agriculture, r/o Ganeshwadi, Tq: Gokak, dist: Belagavi.

¶15

Shivaling s/o Sadashiva Tukkare, Age:22 years, occ.: Agriculture, r/o Ganeshwadi, Tq: Gokak, dist: Belagavi.

¶16

Shiddavva Sadashiva Tukkare, Age: 50 years, occ.: Household, r/o Ganeshwadi, Tq: Gokak, dist: Belagavi. - Petitioners

¶17

(By Sri S.A. Sondur, Advocate for Sri Pruthvi K.S. Advocate)

¶18

And:

¶19

State of Karnataka, Represented by SPP, High Court Building, Dharwad.

¶20

Smt. Rayavva, w/o Adiveppa Sangrojikoppa, r/o: Ganeshwadi, Tq: Gokak, Dist: Belagavi.

¶21

Respondents (By Sri Praveen Uppar, H.C.G.P. for R1, Sri K. Anandkumar, Advocate for R2)

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak in C.C. No. 1233/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 323, 324, 354(B), 109, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC & etc.

¶23

: 3 : CRL P NO.101261/2017

¶24

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission through physical hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The present petitioners who are accused nos.1 to 8 in C.C. No. 1233 of 2017 of the first respondent Police Station, which matter is now pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gokak (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘the trial Court’) for the offences punishable under Section 143, 323, 324, 354(B) 109, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘I.P.C.’), have sought for quashing of the said criminal case against them.

¶27

The respondents are being represented by their counsels.

¶28

Though this matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent from both sides the matter is taken up for its final disposal.

¶29

: 4 : CRL P NO.101261/2017

¶30

Heard arguments from both sides.

¶31

The summary of the case of the prosecution is that on 18.10.2016 with respect to dispute of the boundary of their agricultural fields at about 5.30 p.m. all the present accused formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object assaulted the present respondent No.2 who is the complainant and her husband Sri Adiveppa (CW4) with their hands and legs and abused them in filthy language and also insulted them and thereby have committed the alleged offences.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments drawing the attention of this Court to the certified copy of the Private Complaint No. NIL dated 29.07.2016 in the trial Court and also that a certified copy of the complaint in O.S. No. 456/2016 filed by the present petitioner No.1 against the husband of the present respondent No.2 which is for the relief of

¶33

: 5 : CRL P NO.101261/2017

¶34

permanent injunction submits that after these two criminal case and civil suit against the family of the complainant, the family through the complainant as a revenge has filed the present false case. He further submits that, even according to the charge sheet no weapon much less any deadly weapon has been used in the alleged offence of crime.

¶35

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits

¶36

that the Investigating Officer since has already filed charge sheet, this Court need not have to interfere in the matter.

¶37

A perusal of the materials placed before this Court would go to show that much before the alleged incident, the petitioner No.1 himself had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the present respondent No.2 and her family members

¶38

CRL P NO.101261/2017

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

alleging similar offences punishable under Sections 143, 146, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 441, 435, 347, 354 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. The present respondent No.2 herein is accused No.2 and her husband is accused No.1 in the said private complaint.

¶41

The present petitioner No.1 also shown to have filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 456/2016 in the trial Court against the husband of the present respondent No.2 for the relief of permanent injunction with respect to the very same disputed property. The said suit appears to have been filed on 31.08.2016. However, merely because a criminal complaint and a civil case has been filed from the petitioner No.1 herein by that itself it cannot be concluded that the present complaint is only an after thought and that there are no materials for the Criminal Court to proceed further in the present complaint. However, the said defence is always available for the petitioners to take up at the appropriate

¶42

: 7 : CRL P NO.101261/2017

¶43

stage in the trial Court. It cannot be forgotten that the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and has filed charge sheet against the present petitioners. Added to that, the Investigating Officer is also shown to have recorded statements of CWs 4, 5 and 6 showing them as eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present complaint is an after thought, cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even if the charge sheet papers are taken on its face value, still could not make out a case for the alleged offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC for the reason, no weapon of any sort much less a deadly weapon has admittedly been shown as used by any alleged assailants in the alleged commission of crime.

¶45

CRL P NO.101261/2017

¶46

: 8 :

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does not oppose the said submission. On the other hand, learned H.C.G.P. fairly concedes that even according to the charge sheet papers, the only instrument or article shown to have used in assaulting of the complainant was a chappal. However, by the alleged further statement of the alleged victim, the said article is also shown to have not been used in the commission of the crime. He concedes no weapon much less any deadly weapon is used in the commission of the crime.

¶48

In such circumstances, without any hesitation it can be held that there are no materials in the charge sheet for attracting Section 324 of IPC, as such, it is only to that extent, the petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

Petition is allowed in part.

¶51

CRL P NO.101261/2017

¶52

: 9 :

¶53

The offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC in C.C. No. 1233 of 2017 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gokak, is quashed. Rest of the offences punishable under Section 143, 323, 354(B) 109, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC alleged in the charge sheet remain unaltered.

¶54

SD JUDGE

¶55

bvv

Laxman S/O Govind Tukkare v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman S/O Govind Tukkare 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

Basanagouda S/O Shivagouda Patil, Vs the State of Karnataka

B. Boraiah Vs Sathyanarayana

Dastagir a. Bhaldar Vs Sumaiyya W/O Mubin Bhaldar

Ningappa S/O. Sannabasappa Hadli Vs the State of Karnataka

Ningappa S/O. Sannabasappa Hadli Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashwini D/O Nagappa Gatti Vs State of Karnataka