Dismissed

Abdul Azeez v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2021CRL.P/2601/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka examined whether ongoing criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process. The court held that available evidence in the charge sheet was sufficient to warrant trial and disposed of the petition by dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.4141/2017 dismissed.

Abdul Azeez Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.2601/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2601/2018

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

ABDUL AZEEZ S/O. ABDUL KAYUM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/AT RML NAGAR, 7^TH CROSS SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201

¶10

IMTHIYAZ AHMED KHAZI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O.KHAJI AJEEM MOHIDDIN ILIAYU NAGAR, 9^TH CROSS SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 …PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS INSPECTOR THUNGA NAGAR POLICE STATION TUNGA NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201

¶14

GIRISH B.C. THUNGA NAGAR POLICE STATION TUNGA NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201 …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN

¶17

Crl.P.No.2601/2018

¶18

¶19

C.C.NO.4141/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRIME NO.586/2016 AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.4141/2017 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Shivamogga amount to abuse of the process of the Court”? is the question involved in this case.

¶23

On 15.12.2016, respondent No.1 police registered Crime No.586/2016 against Jameer, Sadhik and Mohammed Khaleel Ulla for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 41(D) of Cr.P.C. and Sections 120B read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of the complaint of Girish B.C, Sub-Inspector of Police of respondent No.1.

¶24

It was alleged that on the basis of the credible information that accused No.1 possessing revolver and bullets without any license, on 15.12.2016 at 10.15 a.m. the complainant and his staff intercepted accused No.1 in front of bus stand of Tavarekoppa. They conducted search

¶25

Crl.P.No.2601/2018

¶26

¶27

and he was possessing two live bullets and the revolver and they were seized. On interrogation, accused No.1 revealed that accused No.2 prisoner in Shimoga jail managed to get the revolver and bullets for the purpose of committing murder of one Munna.

¶28

After investigation, respondent No.1 police laid charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1)(AA) of the Arms Act, 1959, 120B, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. In the charge sheet, the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 10.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

¶30

That accused Nos.2 and 10 were having enmity against CW.19. Therefore they along with other accused conspired to commit his murder. In execution of such conspiracy, accused No.2 through accused No.3 secured revolver and bullets and hired him by paying Rs.3,50,000/- to shoot CW.19. On 10.10.2016, accused Nos.1, 3, 11 and 14 attempted on the life of CW.19, but he

¶31

Crl.P.No.2601/2018

¶32

¶33

escaped. Thereafter in that process the bullets were

¶34

handed over to accused No.1 and he was caught.

¶35

After filing of the charge sheet, the Magistrate took cognizance and registered the case in C.C.No.4141/2017. It is submitted that now the matter is pending in S.C.No.93/2019 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Shivamogga. It is further submitted that accused No.6 filed Crl.P.No.6703/2017 seeking quashing of the proceedings, but the said case was dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks

¶37

quashing of the proceedings on the following grounds:

¶38

(i) There is delay in recording the statements of witnesses to the alleged conspiracy;

¶39

(ii) The statements of CWs.20 to 23 the alleged witnesses conspiracy is very bald and not sufficient to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners; &

¶40

(iii) There is delay in recording the statement of accused No.2 who allegedly implicated the petitioners .

¶41

Crl.P.No.2601/2018

¶42

¶43

Reiterating the grounds of the petition, learned

¶44

Counsel for the petitioners submits that absolutely there is no ground to proceed against the petitioners in trial.

¶45

Per contra, Smt.Namitha Mahesh.B.G., learned

¶46

HCGP submits that the voluntary statement of accused No.2, the statement of CW.19 the victim, and the statements of CWs.20 to 23 eyewitnesses to the conspiracy, CDRs and cell phone conversation between accused No.2 and petitioner No.2 show the involvement of the petitioners. She further submits that whether that evidence was acceptable or not is the matter of trial.

¶47

It is settled principle of law that quashing of the proceedings invoking power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. shall be sparingly used and the Trial in a criminal case cannot be scuttled by lightly exercising such powers. It is further settled principle of law that while considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C the Court cannot hold roving enquiry and shall not conduct mini trial or mock trial.

¶48

Crl.P.No.2601/2018

¶49

¶50

In the case on hand, the allegation against the petitioners is that they were conspirators in the alleged attempt of commission of murder of CW.19. It is further alleged that petitioner No.2 at the instance of accused No.2 participated in the conspiracy.

¶51

The charge sheet records contain voluntary statements of accused No.2 and statements of CWs.20 and 23 to the effect that the petitioners have participated in the conspiracy. CW.19 in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has stated that petitioner No.2 was ill-disposed against him and stated about the motive.

¶52

The charge sheet records contain CDRs and

¶53

alleged call detail conversation of accused No.1 and petitioner No.2. Whether all such material is acceptable is the matter of trial. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that in the charge sheet absolutely there is no material to proceed against the petitioners. This Court does not find any abuse of the process of the Court in taking cognizance or proceedings in C.C.No.4141/2017, therefore the petition is dismissed.

¶54

Crl.P.No.2601/2018

¶55

¶56

The trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the order while considering the defence of the accused at the stage of framing of the

¶57

charges or in the trial.

¶58

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018

¶59

stood disposed of.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

KSR

Abdul Azeez v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Azeez 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

Abraham v Barnes Vs Felcita a Barnes

Sri Pramod Chakravarti Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganapathi Bhat a Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Asha P Shetty Vs Smt K Rupa

Smt Asha P Shetty Vs Smt K Rupa

Sri a Vishwanath Vs State of Karnataka