Allowed

A.R.Patil v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Sept 2022CRL.P/101438/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court cited the trial court's procedural lapses in evidence recording and the prior quashing of cases against co-accused. The court held the continuation of the case was an abuse of process and ordered its quashal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings pending in C.C. No. 606/2014 against the petitioner accused No. 3 were quashed.

A.R.Patil Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101438/2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

A.R. PATIL (AMAGOUDA RAYAGOUDA PATIL),

¶9

AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: FIELD OFFICER, EXAMBA AREA, NOW AT:3705, RAJWAD PARISAR, SRI DATTA MANDIR, KURUNDAWAD, TQ:SHIROL, DIST: KOLHPUR.

¶10

…ACCUSED NO.3/ PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶14

BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD,

¶16

THROUGH CHIKODI POLICE STATION.

¶17

SMT. DROUPADI W/O. SURESH WAGGE,

¶18

AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶19

R/O: BASAVANALAGADDE, POST: HIREKODI,

¶20

TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

…COMPLAINANAT/RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C, SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IN C.C.

¶24

¶25

Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶26

NO.606/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, CHIKKODI, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S.384, 504, 506 R/W. SEC.34 OF IPC.

¶27

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 has

¶30

filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C No. 606/2014 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Chikkodi, for the offences punishable under Section 384, 504, 506 r/w/s. 34 of IPC.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the field officer in Shri Gurudutta Sugars Limited, Takliwadi, Shirol Taluk, District Kolhapur of Maharastra. The said Sugar Factory used to make advance for providing transport vehicles. The dispute regarding the transport vehicles is managed and looked by the lower cadre employees of the factory. Petitioner is not having any

¶32

3 Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶33

kind of direct communication with the owners of the such vehicles.

¶34

Such being the case one Suresh Wagge, the

¶35

husband of respondent No.2 after having taken advance and failed to provide service of the vehicle has got filed a false complaint through respondent No.2 in PC. No. 171/2010, alleging the offences punishable under Sections 365, 384, 387, 392, 504, 506 (II) r/w.s.34 of IPC, against the petitioner as accused No.3 and others. The trial Court has referred the same to the Chikkodi Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and it is registered in Crime No.27/2011. After the investigation, the concerned Police have filed B-report stating that no such offence is made out and to overcome the liability of returning the advance of Rs.1,00,000/- taken by her husband a false complaint is filed. To the said B-report, a respondent No.2 has filed protest petition on 11.01.2013. On 12.03.2013, the Trial Court has recorded the sworn statement of respondent

¶36

¶37

Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶38

No.2. However, on 31.07.2013 without recording the

¶39

sworn statement of the witnesses, the trial Court has provided the complainant to lead the evidence of PWs.2 to 4. Similarly, on 07.09.2013 and 29.11.2013 the sworn statement of PWs.5 and 6 is recorded through the evidence led by the counsel for complainant.

¶40

The perusal of the statements of PWs.1 to 6 does not make any grounds to proceed against the petitioner and others. However, the trial Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 384, 504, 506 r/w/s. 34 of IPC.

¶41

Respondent No.1 is being represented by High Court Government Pleader.

¶42

Respondent No.2 has appeared through

¶43

counsel.

¶44

During the course of arguments, learned

¶45

counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly,

¶46

¶47

Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶48

respondent No.2 is not the owner of the vehicle in question and as such she is not having any locus-standi to maintain the complaint. There is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint and no explanation is forth coming. The material placed on record is silent about the persons who accompanied the accused Nos.2 and 3. B- report discloses that after taking advance the husband of respondent No.2 has failed to provide service and on the other hand has set up respondent No.2 to file complaint. Already the criminal proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2 are quashed by this Court. Continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court and prays to quash the proceedings.

¶49

In support of his arguments learned counsel

¶50

for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

¶51

6 Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶52

a) Naganagouda Veeranagouda Patil and Another Vs. Malatesh H. Kulkarni and Others¹ ( Naganagouda’s Case ).

¶53

b) Ravikumar Vs. K.M.C Vasantha and Others² ( Ravikumar’s Case ).

¶54

c) Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others³ ( Priyanka Srivastava’s Case )

¶55

d) Krishna Lal Chawla and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another⁴ ( Krishna Lal Chawla’s Case ).

¶56

e) Mahadevrao Ghatage Vs. State of Karnataka⁵ ( Mahadevrao Ghatage’s Case ).

¶57

f) Mrutunjai S/o. Balaram Shinde Vs. State of Karnataka⁶ ( Mrutunjai’s Case )

¶58

On the other hand learned counsel for

¶59

respondent No.2 argued and submitted that the sworn statement of Pws. 1 to 6 reveal the involvement of

¶60

1 ILR 1997 KAR 2091

¶61

2 Crl.P. No.536/2017

¶62

3 (2015) 6 SCC 287

¶63

4 2021 AIAR (Criminal) 440

¶64

5 Crl. P. No.100069/2019

¶65

6 Crl.P. No.101403/2019

¶66

7 Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶67

accused No.3 and it is a matter for trial to establish the charges leveled against him. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, parity cannot be considered and prays to reject the petition and permit the complainant to prosecute the matter before the trial Court.

¶68

Heard the arguments and perused the

¶69

records.

¶70

From the material placed on record it is evident that the husband of respondent No.2 is the owner of Tractor bearing registration No.KA.23/T-9354 and Trailer KA.23/T-9682. During 2014 he entered into an agreement with the accused persons to transport Sugar cane from the fields to the factory premises during crushing season of 2004 by taking advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. While the respondent No.2 alleges that though her husband was ready to perform his part of the contract, the factory did not start and therefore he could not fulfill his obligation. He was told to commence the

¶71

¶72

Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶73

work after the factory functioning starts. She has alleged that however, on 26.12.2004, the accused Nos.1 and 2 sent accused No.3 with other officials and Gundas and took away the Tractor and Trailer. Again during March2005 they took away the TVS Victor motorcycle belonging to the husband of respondent No.2. Though the husband of respondent No.2 pleaded them to return the vehicles and that he would repay the advance, they did not agree. She further alleged that 08.02.2006 the accused persons abducted the husband of the respondent No.2 and took his signatures to blank bond papers and gave threat etc,. On 08.10.2010 though the husband of respondent No.2 went to the factory premises to settle the matter accused persons were not there. However, on 09.10.2010 accused No.3 came to the house of the respondent No.2 and accused persons gave threat to her life and etc,. On these allegations she filed the complaint.

¶74

¶75

Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶76

12. At the out set it is relevant to note that so far

¶77

as the Tractor, Trailer and two wheeler is concerned the victim is the husband of respondent No.2. However, he has not chosen to file the complaint. On the other hand though according to the respondent No.2, the incident started on 26.12.2004 and the subsequent incident took place during March-2005, 08.02.2006 and the latest incident took place on 09.10.2010, respondent No.2 has chosen to file the complaint on 15.10.2010. Absolutely no explanation is forth coming for the delay. Though the alleged offences are cognizable in nature, admittedly the petitioner has not approached the concerned police. It is not her case that she has approached the concerned Police and they refused to take the complaint. Directly she has filed the complaint before the trial Court and sought for referring the complaint to the police for investigation. The trial Court has also without referring to the guidelines given in the Priyanka Srivastava’s Case, has referred the complainant for investigation.

¶78

¶79

Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶80

After investigation, the concerned police have filed ‘B’ report. However, as held by this Court in Crl.P No.536/2017 in Ravikumar’s Case, the trial Court without considering the B report and passing any orders either accepting or rejecting B report has proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while recording sworn statement of PWs.2 to 5, the learned counsel who was representing the complainant has led their evidence and the same is vitiated as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Naganagouda’s case referred to supra . Therefore the same is vitiated.

¶81

As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Lal Chawla’s case, criminal litigations should not be allowed to continue to harass the adversaries. In fact in Crl.P. Nos.100069/2019 and 101403/2019, already the criminal proceedings are quashed as against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Though while considering the

¶82

¶83

Crl.P. No.101438/2019

¶84

petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the parity cannot be claimed, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 is also entitled for the benefit of quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and accordingly, I proceed to passing the following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.

¶87

The criminal proceedings pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Chikkodi, in C.C No. 606/2014, as against petitioner- accused No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

¶89

A.R.Patil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.R.Patil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Auto Shankar S/O. Laxmappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Auto Shankar Alias Shankar Lingappa S/O Lachamappa Alias Laxmappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Auto Shankar S/O Lakshmappa Alias Lachamappa Vs the State of Karnataka

K Ravindra S/O Kakarla Ramayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Renuka W/O Gangappa Naikar Vs Sri. Gangappa Bhimmappa Naikar

Subhas S/O Ashok Ghodake Vs the State of Karnataka