Dismissed

Usman N B v. Mr. I. Ramlan

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2021WP/7455/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC regarding a registered case and a counter-case involving mutual assault, the Court held that when both cases establish an admitted incident, quashing is not applicable at this stage. The matter must be adjudicated by the Trial Court to determine the aggressor.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed to quash the criminal proceedings was dismissed.

Usman N B Vs Mr. I. Ramlan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION NO.7455 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

USMAN N.B. S/O. LATE B.K. IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.5/93, THANJIM MANZIL, HOUSE NO.5/93, ANGARAGUNDI, BYKAMPADI, MANGALURU – 574 145.

¶7

JALEEL S/O. LATE B.K. IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANGARAGUNDI, BYKAMPADI, MANGALURU – 574 145.

¶8

RAFEEQ @ MOHAMMED RAFEEQ S/O. LATE B.K. IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANGARAGUNDI, BYKAMPADI, MANGALURU – 574 145.

¶9

RAZIK @ MOHAMMED ISMAIL RAZIK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. USMAN, RESIDING AT ANGARAGUNDI, BYKAMPADI, MANGALURU – 574 145.

¶10

¶11

AKRAM @ MOHAMMED AKRAM S/O. B.K. IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANGARAGUNDI, BYKAMPADI, MANGALURU – 574 145. ... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI AJAY PRABHU, ADV., FOR SRI SACHIN B.S.) AND:

¶13

MR. I. RAMLAN S/O. ABOOBAKKAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT INDHABETTU HOUSE, KALAM NAGAR, BANGADI POST, INDHABETTU GRAMA, BELTHANGADY TALUK – 574 217. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANAMBUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, H.C.G.P. FOR R-2, & R-1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) * * *

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN C.C. NO.2328 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF II J.M.F.C., MANGALURU, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 448, 506, 504, 323, 324, 354 AND 427 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 5 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indian read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.2328 of 2018 pending on the file of the II J.M.F.C., Mangaluru, D.K. for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 506, 504, 323, 324, 354 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered by Panambur Police Station, D.K., in Crime No.52 of 2016.

¶19

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2-State. Respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented.

¶20

The case of the petitioners is that, on the complaint of Sri I. Ramlan, the Police registered a case when he was under treatment in the Hospital. It is alleged by him that his sister, Jameela, was given in marriage to accused No.1 and he

¶21

¶22

died long back and his sister was staying in her in-laws place. On the day of the incident, when himself and other relatives were in his sister’s house, the accused persons entered the house illegally and threatened his sister and thrashed her. Accused No.1 attempted to attack her by knife, where he defended his sister and got injury over his left eyebrow and injury over his right hand palm, accused No.2 thrashed him with stick in his hand to waist of the complainant and accused No.4 damaged the window glass by throwing stone and used filthy language to scold his sister. Later, his relatives shifted him to the Hospital at 2:30 p.m. The Police visited the Hospital and recorded the statement and F.I.R. has been issued in Crime No.52 of 2016 for the aforesaid offences. After investigation, the Police have filed charge-sheet. The petitioners are already facing trial and the same is pending for framing of charge.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the case is filed by the complaint as a counter blast, which is a false case. The complainant himself along with

¶24

¶25

relatives picked up quarrel with the petitioners and assaulted them. Therefore, petitioner No.1 has also filed the complaint against the complainant and others, which is registered in Crime No.51 of 2016 for similar offences. In order to avoid the criminal proceedings, counter blast case is registered. They are innocent of the alleged offences. There is no injury as stated by the complainant in his complaint. The complainant has given different statement in his further statement that there is no assault on his mother. Hence, he prayed for quashing the proceedings.

¶26

Per contra , the learned High Court Government

¶27

Pleader has objected the petition and contended that when the case and counter-case are registered, the incident is admitted one. Therefore, the petitioners have to face the trial and take the defence in the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶28

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, the incident is admitted one. The complainant says that when himself and other relatives were in his sister’s

¶29

¶30

house, the petitioners picked up quarrel and assaulted them. The petitioners have also filed the complaint against the complainant and others in Crime No.51 of 2016. Hence, the Police have registered the complaint of the complainant as well as of the petitioners. After investigation, the Police have filed charge-sheet against both the rival groups. If the petitioners wanted to take any defence, the same can be agitated before the Trial Court and the Trial Court is required to verify who the aggressor for the commission of the offences is. Therefore, at this stage, merely case was registered subsequent to the case of the petitioners that cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. When case and counter-case are registered, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. The petitioners have not made a ground to quashing the proceedings.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶32

SD/JUDGE

¶33

kvk

Usman N B v. Mr. I. Ramlan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman N B v. Mr. I. Ramlan

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

M/S. Garuda Auto Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nischith Kumar Vs State by Public Prosecutor

Sri. Ganesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Abdul Sattar Vs M/S H M Estates and Properties

Gopal Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka