Dismissed
Mohammad Haris @ Mohammad Arif v. State
Karnataka HCCRL.P/402/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED…
What the court decided
AI extract
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.402/2019
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD HARIS @ MOHAMMAD ARIF S/O ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT #1-146, KUVETTU, PICHANDI KALLU KUVETTU VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574214.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABDUL ANSAR P., ADV.,)
AND:
UJIRE, BELTHANGADY TALUK,
2
D K DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-574240.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.348/2015 CRIME NO.397/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY D.K, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.447 AND 149 OF IPC AND SEC.31 AND 103 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri Abdul Ansar P., learned counsel for the
petitioner is appearing through video conference and seeking for some short accommodation.
filing of vakalath/memo of appearance by Sri Amit Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2 who is physically present before the Court.
3
seeking for quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 in C.C.No.348/2015 which is pending before the Court
of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Belthangadi, Dakshina Kannada District, for the offences punishable under Section 447 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 31 and 103 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
approached Belthangadi Police Station, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District, for initiation of criminal prosecution against the accused and accordingly, case in Crime No.397/2014 was registered by the police having jurisdiction by recording FIR dated 09.10.2014.
incident narrated in his complaint and he was working as a traffic controller at KSRTC unit in the limits of
4
Ujire, Belthangadi. But on 20.10.2014 the informant who is arraigned as respondent No.2 herein was on duty as he being a traffic controller and at about 4.30 pm., a student organization having been assembled in the place belonging to KSRTC unit and without permission they have gathered and held the protest with regard to Saujanya rape and murder case. But the case in Crime No.397/2014 has been registered by the police having jurisdiction inclusive of the offence under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Whereas, in this matter, the counsel has produced the documents vide Annexures-A and B for the purpose of perusal.
5
witnesses and so also to secure the material documents
and apart from conducting mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses in order to file the charge sheet against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction.
6
jurisdiction and thereafter, the accused are required to
face trial for the offences which are lugged against them.
seeking for intervention as under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of the case in C.C.No.348/2015. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is made clear that nothing shall be limit to exercise power which is termed as inherent power that is neither affecting nor effecting any order under this code, that is the first limb of the said provision. The second limb of the aforesaid provision is to avoid the abuse of process of law and third limb of the said provisions are otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the scope and object of the said provisions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is equally applicable to both the complainant who is gravamen of the incident who narrated in his complaint and the accused who is the gravamen of the accusation made in the charge sheet laid by the Investigation Officer.
7
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.3
under Section 428 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
PB/RJ
Mohammad Haris @ Mohammad Arif
State by Belthangady Police Station
N J Joseph
K.Somashekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court