Disposed

H M Rudrakumar v. the State by Hosadurga

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2020CRL.P/5831/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition sought to quash a charge-sheet filed from the respondent's complaint, alleging it was a counterblast to the petitioners' complaint. The Court observed that since both complaints arose from the same incident involving an altercation, quashing one would be inappropriate. The Court directed the lower court to club both charges for trial.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to club C.C. Nos. 634/2020 and 633/2020 for conduct of trial without awaiting notice to respondents.

H M Rudrakumar Vs the State by Hosadurga — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.P.No.5831 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5831 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

H.M. RUDRAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O D. MAHESWARAPPA, BANASHANKARI NILAYA, 2^ND MAIN GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 9.

¶10

SRI D. MAHESWARAPPA, S/O DODDAPPA, SENIOR CITIZEN, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE PERMANENT R/AT HEBBLLY VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE BY HOSADURGA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶16

CRL.P.No.5831 of 2020

¶17

¶18

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶19

DHANANJAYA H.G., S/O LATE GANGADHRAPPA, AGE 23 YEARS, HEBBLLY VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.634/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSDURGA ANNEXURE – B.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the charge-sheet in C.C. No.634/2020 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Hosadurga.

¶26

It is contended that the petitioners have filed a complaint on 28.06.2020 which came to be

¶27

CRL.P.No.5831 of 2020

¶28

¶29

registered in Crime No.232/2020 on 28.06.2020 at 23.15 hours. In the said complaint the petitioners have alleged that while the petitioners were coming back from their property through the property of respondent No.2 there was an altercation between petitioners and respondent No.2 which resulted in a physical fight.

¶30

Respondent No.2 has also filed a complaint on 28.06.2020 which is the subject matter of these proceedings. As regards which Crime No.233/2020 was registered in 28.06.2020 at 23.45 hours. Both the said complaints were registered by Hosadurga Circle Police, Hosadurga Police Station.

¶31

On enquiry Sri K.G. Sadashivaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in both the complaints charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is now pending before the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Hosadurga.

¶32

CRL.P.No.5831 of 2020

¶33

¶34

Sri Sadashivaiah, learned counsel has filed the above petition for quashing of the charge-sheet in C.C. No.634/2020 filed in respect of Crime No.233/2020 contending that the said complaint filed by respondent No.2 is a counterblast to the complaint filed by the petitioners and therefore the same is required to be quashed.

¶35

Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1

¶36

Having considered the complaint filed by the petitioners against respondent No.2 and the complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners, it is clear that the incident has occurred on 28.06.2020 between 6.30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. The only issue is as to who has assaulted whom, whether it is the petitioners who assaulted respondent No.2 or respondent No.2 has assaulted

¶37

CRL.P.No.5831 of 2020

¶38

¶39

the petitioners. The charge-sheet having been filed

¶40

in both the matters, it is therefore required that this fact has to be ascertained only during the course of trial. This Court in proceedings under Section 482 cannot quash one of the proceedings when the incident has been admitted by both the parties. Hence, the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court Hosadurga is directed to club both the matters, i.e. one arising out of C.C. No.634/2020 and other arising out of C.C. No.633/2020 and to conduct the matters, without awaiting notice to the respondents. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.

¶41

Taking into consideration the age of the 2^nd petitioner being 90 years, the appearance of the 2^nd petitioner is exempted. If his presence is required for any particular purpose, the Court may direct him to be present on that particular occasion.

¶42

CRL.P.No.5831 of 2020

¶43

¶44

In view of disposal of the present petition, the I.A. No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

JUDGE SBS*

H M Rudrakumar v. the State by Hosadurga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H M Rudrakumar v. the State by Hosadurga

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 K Shivaram Vs Smt. Kamala Shivaram

Ameen Khan Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Krishnamurthy N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B P Kamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sandeep Gupta Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Savithri S N Prabhakar Vs State of Karnataka