Dismissed

Sri Manjunatha B K @ Manju v. State by

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2021CRL.P/2780/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging criminal proceedings arising from two FIRs. Petitioners alleged false complaint by the second respondent, but the Court found insufficient grounds to quash proceedings pending trial. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of proceedings is dismissed.

Sri Manjunatha B K @ Manju Vs State by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2780 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri Manjunatha B.K. @ Manju, S/o late Krishnappa, Aged about 50 years, R/at Hodduru Village, Murnadu, Madikeri Taluku, Kodagu District-571252.

¶9

Sri Kavin K.R., S/o Raju Late, Aged about 28 years,

¶10

Sri Yogesh K.N., S/o Late Narayan K.S., Aged about 29 years,

¶11

Sri Charan A.P., S/o Puttaswamy, Aged about 31 years,

¶12

Petitioner No.2 to 4 are R/at Balamuri Village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District-571201.

¶13

…Petitioners

¶14

(By Sri Prakasha K.V., Advocate)

¶15

AND

¶16

State by Madikeri Rural Police Station, Kodagu District,

¶17

¶18

Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru-560001,

¶19

Smt. Swapna Kaveramma, W/o Prasanth B., Aged about 26 years, R/at Cheyandane Village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District-571201.

¶20

…Respondents

¶21

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1)

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.503/2020 arising out of Cr.No.260/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 504, 506, 341 read with 34 of IPC registered by Madikeri Rural Police Station, Kodagu District, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., court, Madikeri, Kodagu District.

¶23

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the petitioners’ counsel at the time of admission.

¶26

This is a petition under Section 482 of

¶27

Cr.P.C., the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in

¶28

¶29

C.C.No.503/2020 registered pursuant to FIR in Crime

¶30

No.260/2018 at the first respondent police station.

¶31

The argument of the petitioners’ counsel is

¶32

that the first petitioner, namely, Manjunatha B K, made a report to the police on 22.08.2018 against the driver of the pick-up jeep alleging that jeep driver fired five times from his gun, and as a result of this firing, his auto rickshaw was damaged and somehow he escaped from the gun shot. After the first petitioner made a report to the police, the second respondent went to police station on 23.08.2018 and made a false complaint against him and others and therefore the FIR in Crime No.260/2018 came to be registered. Actually, the first petitioner has not committed any offence as has been reported by the second respondent. The police have filed false charge sheet and therefore there is no prima-facie material against the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners 2 to 4 were the

¶33

¶34

passengers in the auto rickshaw, they are innocent persons.

¶35

What appears is that, two FIRs came to be registered, firstly, in Crime No.256/2018 at the instance of the first petitioner in relation to offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act and secondly, in Crime No.260/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 384 and 506 of IPC act the instance of the second respondent. Pursuant to both the FIRs, charge sheets have been filed.

¶36

To decide whether the petitioners herein really restrained the second respondent and posed threat to her, is a matter to be proved by the prosecution during trial. Merely on the basis of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that a false FIR has been registered, jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised. In respect of both charge sheets, trial has to be held and

¶37

¶38

evidence is necessary. I do not find any good reason

¶39

for admitting this petition. It is dismissed .

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Kmv/-

Sri Manjunatha B K @ Manju v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha B K @ Manju v. State by

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

Mr. Mohammed Azeez Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Azeez Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N C Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Srinivasa Vs Radha Ramakrishnan

M. Srinivasa Vs Mrs. Shobana G Subramaniam

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S People Tech It Consultancy Private Limited