Dismissed

Sri.Murthy v. State by Tarikere Town Police

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2021CRL.P/2046/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought to quash an FIR for offences including murder and assault, alleging the victim was not tortured and had committed suicide. The court held that the prima facie disclosure of cognizable offences in the complaint necessitates investigation, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach court after filing of final report.

Sri.Murthy Vs State by Tarikere Town Police — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2046/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MURTHY S/O BANGARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR N.R. PURA POLICE STATION, N.R.PURA CHIKKAMAGALURU-577228. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY TARIKERE TOWN POLICE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560001 … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 05.12.2019 IN RESPECT OF FIR CRIME NO.276/2019 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 342, 324, 306, 465, 471, 474, 330 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying

¶18

this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.276/2019 dated 05.12.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324, 306, 465, 471, 474, 330 read with Section 34 of IPC and pass such other orders as this Court deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶19

The factual matrix of the case is that, the victim was taken to the Police Station on 15.11.2016 at 8:45 a.m., and thereafter he was subjected to torture in the Police Station. Hence, he committed the suicide on the very next day i.e., on 16.11.2016 in the toilet belongs to the Police Station, Tarikere. It is also an allegation against the petitioner that he only registered the suo motu case in Crime No.453/2016 invoking Sections 41D, 102 of Cr.P.C., and Section 379 of IPC. Based on the complaint, the police have registered a case and the matter is under investigation.

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that a case has been registered against the deceased and he was not subjected to any torture and the statement of witnesses also recorded. The stolen vehicle was also seized. In this regard, a Mahazar was also drawn. Hence, there cannot be any criminal prosecution against this petitioner.

¶22

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State would submit that the post-mortem was conducted and the same discloses that there were 16 injuries and the matter is under investigation and it requires a trial.

¶23

Having heard the arguments of the respective

¶24

counsel and also on perusal of the complaint averments, a specific allegation made against this petitioner is that he brought the victim/deceased on 15.11.2016 and he was subjected to torture, as a result, he committed a suicide on 16.11.2016 in the toilet of the Tarikere Police Station. The UDR case No.28/2016 is also registered. When the post-mortem report discloses that there were 16 injuries and the matter requires an investigation,

¶25

¶26

the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint while considering the matter for quashing of FIR. When the complaint prima facie discloses the committing of cognizable offence, the matter has to be probed. Hence, I do not find any merit, at this juncture, to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein.

¶27

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶28

following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) The petition is dismissed.

¶31

(ii) However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach this Court, if need arises after filing of the final report.

¶32

In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 for

¶33

stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands

¶34

disposed of.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

cp*

Sri.Murthy v. State by Tarikere Town Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Murthy v. State by Tarikere Town Police

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 M Vikram Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivaprasad Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. G. Prashanthkumar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Aramanamada Pratap Vs State of Karnataka

C Ramalingaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. G. Chitra Poornima Vs State by Indiranagar Police Station