Dismissed

P Dilip Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2021WP/6843/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a petitioner accused of decoity and drug offences. The High Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to establish his absence from the crime spot, highlighting his habit of offending as a critical factor.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings is dismissed.

P Dilip Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6843 OF 2021(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P DILIP KUMAR S/O M.V. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O # 47, 14^TH A CROSS THIGLARA PALYA MAIN RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR KARIOBANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 058.

¶9

LAVANYA D/O R. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O 8/1, 3^RD CROSS ANANDAGIRI EXTENSION NEAR HEBBAL QRTS BENGALURU – 560 024.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE PETITION AGAINST P-2 IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 15.06.2021)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, PEENYA POLICE

¶14

¶15

REPTD., BY HCGP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

BIRANI M.L FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS SUB INSPECTOR PEENYA POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 058.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO. 9/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 399, 402 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 20(B) (II) (b) NDPS ACT AND UNDER SECTION 25-1(B) (b) ARMS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-33) AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.4 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

¶23

India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered by the Peenya police in Crime No.9/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and

¶24

¶25

402 of IPC and under Sections 20(B)(II)(b) of the NDPS Act and Section 25-1(B)(b) of the Indian Arms Act, which is now pending on the file of XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases at Bangalore.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent –State and perused the material on record.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that on a suomuto complaint lodged on 15.01.2021 by the Peenya Police that on 15.01.2021 at about 12.15 Noon, they received a credible information that near Kariobanahalli Eucalyptus grove, about 9 - 10 persons were assembled along with deadly weapons for the purpose of committing decoity and also keeping ganja for selling to the public. After obtaining the necessary

¶28

¶29

permission from the ACP, Yeshwanthpura SubDivision, by securing two panchas along with other police officials in a private vehicle, went to the spot and found that 9 persons were assembled with three motorcycles and were chatting. After seeing the police, six persons were escaped in the two motorcycles and when other three accused tried to escape, they were caught red-handed by the police. After enquiry, they revealed their names as Apsar, Shashank and Bharath and they also revealed the names of other six persons who were escaped from the spot. On further enquiry, they revealed the name of the present petitioner – Dilip and others namely, Praveen, Ajay, Sumanth, Deepak and Ashish. The police also seized 30 gms of ganja from the possession of accused No.1 along with an iron rod and 25 gms of ganja from the possession of accused No.2

¶30

¶31

and 35 gms of ganja from the possession of accused No.3 and also seized 1.910 Kgs of ganja which was in the plastic bag along with one motorcycle. After taking them into custody and registering the case against them, they were produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequent to the police efforts to arrest the present petitioner, who is accused No.4, he said to have approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was rejected. Hence, he is before this Court by way of the present writ petition r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not at all present at the spot as he left to Goa on 12.01.2021 along with his family and he stayed there till 18.01.2021 and that the police have unnecessarily implicated the name of the

¶33

¶34

petitioner as accused No.4 and harassing him to arrest. He further submits that the petitioner has no connection with the other accused, but he has been falsely implicated in the FIR on the voluntary statement of other accused. He further contended that if the accused persons assembled for committing decoity, the question of selling ganja does not arise. The police have unnecessarily added the NDPS case against the accused persons. The police have also threatened the petitioner that they will encounter and kill him. It is therefore submitted that when the petitioner was not at all participated in the alleged crime and he was elsewhere, the question of he surrendering before the police and facing the trial does not arise and it is purely an abuse of process of law. The petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged

¶35

¶36

and he therefore prays for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him.

¶37

Learned HCGP for the respondent – State contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and apart from the present case, there were four cases registered against him viz., (i) Crime No.1041/2014 registered by the Peenya police for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402; (ii) Crime No.424/2016 registered by the Peenya police for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC; (iii) Crime No.136/2016 registered by the Byadarahalli police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC; and (iv) Crime No.12/2021 registered by the Peenya police for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 307, 332 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. He further submitted that the petitioner is absconding since the

¶38

¶39

date of offence and the investigation is under progress. At this stage, without interrogation of the petitioner, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not present along with other accused. The voluntary statement of the accused clearly reveals his presence on the spot and these are all the matters to be considered at the time of trial. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶40

On hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the material on record, it is noticed that the police have registered a suo-muto case and apprehended three accused persons and other six persons were absconded from the spot. The name of the petitioner is shown as accused No.4 in the remand application and also mentioned in the complaint. The police said to have seized 1.910 Kgs of ganja contained in a plastic bag apart from seizing 30 gms,

¶41

¶42

25 gms and 35 gms of ganja from the accused persons 1 to 3 respectively. The name of the petitioner is mentioned by accused No.3 during recording of the voluntary statement. The offences alleged is though under Sections 399 and 400 of IPC along with offences punishable under NDPS Act and Arms Act to show that they are preparing for committing decoity and they are also found in possession of ganja and that if the petitioner's intention were only to commit decoity or with an intention to sell ganja, are the matters for investigation to be conducted by the I.O. The name of the petitioner arraigned as accused No.4 is only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.3.

¶43

It is further noticed that the petitioner's

¶44

counsel has not chosen to file any bail application before the trial court for grant of anticipatory bail by

¶45

¶46

taking the plea of alibi. Whether the petitioner really visited Goa and stayed there along with his family as on the alleged date of incident is a matter for investigation. When such being the case, without ascertaining the truth by way of investigation, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not present at the spot on the date of the alleged incident. If at all the petitioner claiming any plea of alibi as defence, he has to go before the trial court and he has to prove his case as per the provisions contained under Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act. Merely because the police said to have threatened the petitioner by harassing him and encountering him are not the grounds for quashing the FIR filed against the petitioner.

¶47

Petitioner is said to be the habitual offender

¶48

and there are four cases registered against him in

¶49

¶50

different police stations. Such being the case, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him.

¶51

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Srl.

P Dilip Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Dilip Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Dakshayanamma H U Vs State of Karnataka

M Sreekanth Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B N S Reddy Vs State by

Sri. Arun Antony Vs State by Hebbagodi P. S.

Sri Narayana T Vs the State of Karnataka

Shyam. B Vs State of Karnataka