Allowed

Channavva W/O. Chandragouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022CRL.P/100651/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the FIR against two petitioners accused of offences under the IPC. The court held that in the absence of material showing sustained injury for Section 323 and lacking proof of presence based on unchallenged court records, continuing the investigation was an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.29/2022 registered by Garag Police Station is quashed insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3.

Channavva W/O. Chandragouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100651 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100651 OF 2022 (482-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANNAVVA W/O. CHANDRAGOUDA PATIL AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. TADKOD VILLAGE, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580001

¶8

SHEKHARGOUDA ALIAS SHEKHANAGOUDA S/O. CHANDRAGOUDA PATIL AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. TADKOD VILLAGE, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580001 NOW RESIDING AT POORNA PRAJNA APARTMENT, 8^TH CROSS, KALYANAGAR, DHARWAD-580007

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GARAG POLICE STATION R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶13

SMT. SRIDEVI D/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. TADKOD, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580001

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR CRIME NO.29/2022 DATED 21.02.2022 REGISTERED BY GARAG P.S. AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 323,

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 100651 of 2022

¶18

324, 109, 307, 504, 506, R/W 149 OF IPC WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

A first information report has been registered against the petitioners-accused and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 109, 307, 504, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging that on 18.02.2022 at about 10.00 a.m., accused Nos.1 and 2, at the instigation of accused No.3, abused respondent No.2 in filthy language and assaulted her with a broom stick and accused Nos.4 and 5 gave life threat to her. On 19.02.2022, at about 8.30 a.m., accused No.6 and accused No.1 assaulted her with a broom stick and iron road and abused her in filthy language, and accused Nos.7 and 8 supported the said accused. Taking exception to the same, petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as on the date of the alleged incident, accused No.2 was hospitalized and was discharged only on 20.02.2022 and that

¶23

¶24

CRL.P No. 100651 of 2022

¶25

accused No.3, who is working as First Division Assistant in this Court, was on duty as on 18.02.2022 and 19.02.2022. He further submits that except the general and omnibus allegations, there is no specific allegation as against the petitioners-accused and, in the absence of any material that the complainant sustained simple injury, the registration of the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is impermissible.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2

¶27

submits that the allegations made in the FIR discloses commission of the offence alleged against the petitionersaccused which requires to be investigated further and, at this stage, registration of the FIR does not warrant any interference.

¶28

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

Perusal of the discharge summary indicates that petitioner-accused No.2 was hospitalized and was discharged on 20.02.2022. Perusal of the attendance certificate issued by this Court indicates that petitioner-accused No.3, who is working as First Division Assistant, had attended his duties on 18.02.2022 and 19.02.2022 on which dates the incident is alleged to have

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 100651 of 2022

¶32

taken place. These documents have not been controverted by respondent No.2 and have remained unchallenged, which clearly implies that petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 were not present at the place as on the date of the incident. Even otherwise, registration of the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC in the absence of any material to show that respondent No.2 sustained simple injury is impermissible. Hence, continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of process of law since the probability of police filing charge sheet against the petitioners-accused is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The criminal petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.29/2022 registered by the Garag Police Station, insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed.

¶35

KMS

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 91

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

Channavva W/O. Chandragouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channavva W/O. Chandragouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

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

Annavva W/O Mahalingappa Chennal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Shafiulla Mubarak Golandaj Vs Shri.Yamanappa Jetteppa Chaluvadi

A Sampath Kumar S/O a Veeranna Vs Smt. Ramya W/O a Sampath Kumar

Villiam Robart Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahalakshmi D/O Mallayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Kottapally Timmappa Alias Timmaraj Vs Hescom Vigilance Police Station