In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Bench dismissed the plea to quash criminal proceedings. The Court held that mere delay in FIR registration and variations in medical evidence are matters for trial and do not justify quashing charges.
The petition was dismissed; the subsequent interim application also stood dismissed.
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 8th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.824 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO.957, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS
ULLALA MAIN ROAD, JNANAJYOTHI
NAGAR, BANGALORE
PIN CODE-560056
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
2
NO.136, ULLALA MIN ROAD NEAR VAJRESHWARI TALKIES ULLALA BANGALORE-560056 5. JANARDHANA RAO S/O LATE NARASOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.53, ULLALA MAIN ROAD NEAR VAJRESHWARI TALKIES ULLALA BANGALORE-560056 …..PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE BY JNANABHARATI POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001 2. SHIVAKUMAR S/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.89/A, 11TH CROSS, JNANAGANGA NAGAR ULLAL MAIN ROAD BANGALORE RURAL-560056 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ROHITH B J, HCGP FOR R1)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7199/2019, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,448,323,354,504,506 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IX A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the
petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 5 have challenged the proceedings in C.C.No.7199/2019 pending on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore. They have been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 448, 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
that there was a delay of two days in lodging the FIR
4
and in the wound certificate, history is written as assault to 7 to 8 unknown persons. Therefore, it is the submission that if this was the information given to the Doctor by the 2nd respondent when they went to the hospital for taking treatment with his wife, it conveys a meaning that the petitioners are not involved for the commission of offences. The delay shows that unnecessarily the petitioners have been implicated.
the accused gained unlawful entry into the service station of 2nd respondent and then took him to the store room and put threat to him demanding return of the partnership agreement and then assaulted him indiscriminately. It is also stated that accused Nos.1 and 3 tried to outrage the modesty of wife of the 2nd respondent. The Investigating Officer has collected evidence after registration of FIR. It is true that wound
5
certificate history shows that 7 to 8 unknown persons had assaulted and there was also a delay of two days in registration of FIR. It is settled principle that mere
delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to disbelieve the contents. It is a matter of evidence. As
of now charge sheet discloses the involvement of the petitioners in commission of crime. In this view, the petitioners have to face trial. Evidence cannot be appreciated in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
is accordingly dismissed.
SD/JUDGE
KLY/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a slight delay in lodging the FIR and discrepancy in wound certificate history are sufficient grounds to quash criminal proceedings.
Whether there exist any good and sufficient grounds to exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of process under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Somashekar @Soma
Manjunatha @ Chikkanna
Basavaraj C M
Harish Rao
Janardhana Rao
State
Sreenivas Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
