Dismissed

Basanagouda S/O Shivagouda Patil, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2020CRL.P/101422/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings for assault and attempted murder. The court held that a prior civil compromise did not conclude the transaction, as it was restricted to a time limit for sale deed execution, thereby negating the petitioner's defense that the criminal incident could not have occurred.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is dismissed, allowing all criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners.

Basanagouda S/O Shivagouda Patil, Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101422/2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . BASANAGOUDA S/O SHIVAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TQ:ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶8

2 . ALAGOUD S/O SHIVAGOUD PATIL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELGAUM. ... PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.) AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC NO.237/2014 (ATHANI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.271/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELGAUM FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341, 324, 307, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND

¶12

Crl.P. No.101422/2015

¶13

¶14

3(i)(x)(2) (V) OF SC & ST PA ACT 1989 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No.237/2014 pending on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘IPC’) and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in the said criminal case.

¶17

The summary of the charge sheet allegations filed by the respondent-police is that the complainant and his brother, who is CW-8, belong to schedule tribe. The accused belong to lingayat caste. The complainant

¶18

Crl.P. No.101422/2015

¶19

¶20

had entered into an agreement for the purchase of 4 acres of land in Bommanal village from one Sri. Prakash Kittur. The said negotiations had taken place in the middlemanship of accused No.1. In that regard, amount was also paid and an agreement for sale was also entered into. However, the vendor neither delivered the possession of the land nor refunded the advance amount. The complainant was asking the accused either to get the land delivered to him or the advance amount be refunded to him. Due to repeated asking by the complainant in this regard, the accused were annoyed with him. That being the case, on 14.06.2014 at about 9’O clock when the complainant along with CWs.8 and 9 were coming on a motorcycle on kachcha road leading from Salagar to Madabavi, both the accused (petitioners herein) going there in their Bolero motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA.23.N.1130, wrongfully restrained the complainant and other pillion riders on the motorcycle.

¶21

Crl.P. No.101422/2015

¶22

¶23

Knowing fully well that the complainant belongs to schedule tribe, both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention abused the complainant in filthy language taking the name of his caste and also objected for the complainant repeatedly asking them either to get the land delivered to them or the amount refunded, with an intention to kill them, joined by accused No.2 assaulted the complainant on his head with the iron long. At the same time, accused No.2 also assaulted on the back of CW-8 with a stone and as such the accused attempted to cause the death of the complainant and his accomplice. With these allegations, the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 307, 324, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) and (2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act was filed against them.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that much prior to the alleged date

¶25

Crl.P. No.101422/2015

¶26

¶27

of incident in civil suit filed by the complainant against the alleged vendor, a compromise was entered into, as such, the suit with respect to the alleged transaction of the landed property has ended in a compromise. That being the case, the question of the complainant asking the accused for the refund of the money or possession of the land or committing any alleged offence by the accused against the complainant, does not arise. With these, he submits that the complaint is a misconceived complaint only to harass the accused.

¶28

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent in his arguments submits that the complainant in the complaint very clearly and specifically stated as to how the incident has occurred and he has given the details of the alleged overt act committed by both the accused. He further submits that the accused have used deadly weapon like an iron long and also a stone and inflicted

¶29

Crl.P. No.101422/2015

¶30

¶31

injuries upon the complainant. He further submits that the incident has been witnessed by several of the eyewitnesses and the police have also seized the weapons used in the commission of crime. The medical certificate also supports the case of the prosecution. As such, there are no reasons for quashing the criminal case by this Court.

¶32

The alleged date of incident, according to the complainant is 14.06.2014. The petitioners have also filed the certified copy of the alleged compromise settlement said to have taken place in the Lok Adalat proceeding on 06.01.2014 in a civil litigation between the alleged purchaser and vendors. The said compromise petition would go to show that the parties had compromised the matter according to which the purchaser (complainant) had agreed to pay the balance amount of 5,33,750/- after deducting the advance amount paid by him amounting to 5,91,250/- within six

¶33

Crl.P. No.101422/2015

¶34

¶35

months and the vendors had agreed to set right all the documents pertaining to the land and executing the sale deed in their favour. Thus, the alleged settlement has not finally concluded the desire of the complainant to possess the land as the owner. It has only made a way for framing a time limit for performance of the contract in a prescribed manner. Therefore, even after taking into consideration that in a civil litigation the matter was settled between the parties, it does not mean that the transaction was concluded by the performance of the terms of compromise from both side.

¶36

As already observed, the alleged compromise had further extended the time for performance and prescribed the manner of performance of contract from both side. Therefore, from the available record it can be seen that since the alleged incident is alleged to have taken place subsequent to the alleged compromise petition and also seems accused No.1 was said to have

¶37

Crl.P. No.101422/2015

¶38

¶39

been the middleman in contracting the deal between the complainant(purchaser) and the vendor of the land, probably, the complainant was repeatedly demanding for the due execution of the sale deed in his favour or to get the advance amount already paid to the vendors. It is this, his repeated demand with the accused might have led for the alleged incident. Therefore, the only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that in a civil litigation, the matter has been compromised between the complainant and the vendor much prior to the date of alleged incident, as such, the question of occurrence of the incident does not arise, is not acceptable.

¶40

Further, a perusal of the charge-sheet papers would go to show that the complainant and CW-8 are shown to have been injured in the alleged incident and the Investigating Officer claims to have recorded the statement of at least 4 of the eyewitnesses from CW.9

¶41

Crl.P. No.101422/2015

¶42

¶43

to CW.12. He also claims that the weapon alleged to

¶44

have been used in the commission of crime was also seized. Further, he claims that the Forensic Science Laboratory report has been obtained by him and the medical report is also obtained by him. Thus, when the charge-sheet paper, prima facie, goes to show that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the present petitioners/accused for the alleged offence, I do not consider that there is any abuse of process of law or the interest of justice warranting any interference by this Court.

¶45

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The Criminal Petition stands dismissed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

kmv

Basanagouda S/O Shivagouda Patil, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanagouda S/O Shivagouda Patil, 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

Dr K Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdulrafiq Abdulkariim Mulla Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Sattar Abdul Kariim Mulla Vs State of Karnataka

B. Boraiah Vs Sathyanarayana

Dastagir a. Bhaldar Vs Sumaiyya W/O Mubin Bhaldar

Smt. Chinnavva W/O Basappa Kappalguddi Vs the State of Karnataka