Dismissed

Vinod Kumar @ Kambli Vinod v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2021CRL.P/261/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by an accused to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that since a charge sheet was already laid by the investigation agency, quashing would adversely impact society, and thus the petition was rejected without detailed engagement with merits. Quality: thin.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition filed by the petitioner under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

Vinod Kumar @ Kambli Vinod Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.261 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Vinod Kumar @ Kambli Vinod S/o Late Nanjunda Aged 31 years Near Gnapathi Park Hemavathy Extension KR Pete Town – 571426.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri.Byregowda.N– Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Karnataka By K.R. Pete Town Police Station Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶13

..Respondent

¶14

(By Sri.Rahul Rai .K - HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition filed Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petitioner pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.380/2017 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, which is pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,) and JMFC, KR Pete.

¶16

This petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Learned counsel Sri Byregowda for the petitioner is present before the Court physically and seeking for some short accommodation to proceed with the matter.

¶20

Whereas under this petition seeking for quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.380/2017 which is pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pete, Mandya District.

¶21

The first submission is seeking for some short accommodation. The second submission is ready for addressing his arguments. Both this submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.

¶22

Learned HCGP for respondent – State who is present before the Court physically submitted that the case in Crime No.248/2016 has been registered by the K.R.Pet Town Police Station, Mandya District for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 324 r/w 149 of IPC, 1860. But the criminal law was set into motion by filing of a complaint by Ramu and

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

based upon his complaint the crime came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the investigating officer has taken up the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 14 before the court having jurisdiction in C.C.No.380/2017. But in the order sheet maintained the filing number is given as C.C.No.339/2017. Whereas in the order sheet it reveals that the charge sheet has been laid against accused Nos.1 to 14 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 326, 324, 506, 114, 120B r/w 149 of IPC, 1860. Therefore, the learned HCGP submitting for dismissal of the petition being devoid of merits.

¶25

It is relevant to refer the sum and substance of the case against the accused in Crime No.248/2016 which is registered by the respondent – police based upon the complaint filed by the complainant who is a gravamen of the incident. One Naga @ Nagesha along with four other persons alleged to have attacked them. But the petitioner who is arraigned as Accused No.12 and he has also

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

participated in the alleged offences along with other accused and he is required to be facing of trial. But at a cursory glance of each one of the offence lugged against the accused it reveals as unlawful assembly, rioting and causing public peace in the locality and also attempted to take away the life of the injured and causing grievous injuries as narrated in the complaint. They have also extended life threat and hatched criminal conspiracy. Therefore, Section 120B of IPC has been lugged against the accused. The same has been narrated in the substance of the FIR in column 10 recorded by the police having jurisdiction vide Annexure-A. It is relevant to refer that on 19.08.2016 at around 6.00 p.m. when the complainant was present in front of Nandini Canteen near the DCC Bank of K.R.Pete and while he was present there for having sip of coffee as on that day around 4.30 p.m. in K.R.Pete Town, in front of Basaveshwara film theater, Old Kikkeri road, some persons being arraigned as accused alleged to have been assaulted Nanjunda, Rajesh and Venu. In that incident Rajesh alleged to have died. But Nanjunda and Venu who had sustained injuries but for

¶28

: 5 :

¶29

enemity developed between the group of persons in the incident and also connected in view of the old enemity that Nagesh @ Naga S/o Chikkannana Rama and other four persons who have been assembled unlawfully by holding the deadly weapons like longs and reaper weapon and while the complainant being the injured escaped and went to the house of his brother in the backside of Nandini Canteen and all of a sudden that petitioner/accused No.12 and other co-accused picked up quarrel with the injured who is the complainant and abusing him in a filthy language and made to assault with means of deadly weapons which is reflected in the substance of the FIR and causing injuries which also indicates in the wound certificate issued by the Doctor who treated them.

¶30

Whereas, once the FIR has been recorded by following the provision of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. then the domain it is vested with the investigating agency to investigate the case by following the requisite condition as under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C and during the course of

¶31

: 6 :

¶32

investigation recording the statement of witnesses and so also, securing the material documents and also conducted the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and the same has been followed by the investigating agency and laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction in C.C.No.380/2017. When once the charge sheet has been laid by the investigating officer against the accused persons, they are required to be facing of trial for each one of the offences which are lugged against them. Therefore, it cannot arise for dwelling into detail of the factum of charges narrated in the substance of the FIR and even in conformity of the averments of the complaint and so also, the substance in the charge sheet laid by the investigating officer by referring to the statement of witnesses. Therefore, it is said that whatever grounds are urged in this petition for seeking for intervention under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it cannot arise for intervention for seeking quashment of the case in C.C.No.380/2017. If the prayer sought for by the accused seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings is considered, certainly there shall be adverse impact on the

¶33

: 7 :

¶34

society. Therefore, this petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The criminal petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.12 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

DKB

Vinod Kumar @ Kambli Vinod v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar @ Kambli Vinod 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Tajunnisa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Anand Gupta Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ansari Vs Station House Officer

Zameer Vs State by Range Forest Officer

Smt. Jayanthi Vs State by Kumsi P. S.

Smt Pooja Kapoor Sidhu Vs State of Karnataka