Dismissed

Shri Shrishail S/O Shivalingppa Sangolli v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2022WP/100524/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging investigation into deceased Rajakiran Sangolli's death. Petitioners alleged murder via a contract killer, while evidence indicated a road traffic accident involving alcohol consumption and an unlicensed driver. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no sufficient material to question the prima facie conclusion of accidental death.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and pending interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly.

Shri Shrishail S/O Shivalingppa Sangolli Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.100524 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

1 . SHRI SHRISHAIL S/O SHIVALINGPPA SANGOLLI AGE. 46 YEARS, OCCU. T.V CABLE OPERATOR R/O. DESHNOOR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶9

RENUKA W/O. MALLIKARJUN SANGOLLI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DESHNOOR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. M.J.PEERJADE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT. DHARWAD, PIN: 580011

¶14

2 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DIST. BELAGAVI, BELGAVI, PIN: 580011

¶15

3 . THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION,

¶16

¶17

TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102

¶18

4 . THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT REGISTERED ON 25.12.2021 IN NESARAGI PS CR.NO.96/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 304-A OF IPC FILED BY RENUKA-MOTHER OF THE DECEASED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3/DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BAILHONGAL, TO REGISTER THE COMPLAINT PRESENTED BY RENUKA, THE MOTHER OF THE DECEASED, ON 21/1/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND TO INVESTIGATE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

¶22

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners, who are the uncle and mother of deceased-Rajakiran Sangolli, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the complaint dated 25.12.2021 at Annexure-A filed by petitioner No.2 registered in Crime No.96/2021 for the offences punishable under sections 279, 304-A of IPC and direct respondent No.3-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bailhongal, Belagavi District, to investigate into the complaint dated 21.01.2022 at Annexure-C and proceed in accordance with law.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioners that they are

¶27

the residents of Deshnoor village of Bailhongal Taluk. Deceased-Rajakiran Sangolli was the son of Petitioner No.2-Renuka and her husband-Mallikarjun Sangolli. He studied up to PUC and was working in AEQUS factory.

¶28

He was Ayyappa Swami devotee. On 24.12.2021, he

¶29

¶30

participated in the Pooja ceremony of Ayyappa Swami till 9.00 pm. However that night he did not return home. After midnight, Naveen Kashappa Bagalkot came and handed over the cell phone of deceased-Rajakiran saying that deceased took his motorcycle leaving his cell phone with Naveen, but has not returned.

¶31

2.1. After coming to know about the same, petitioner No.1 and other family members searched for deceased-Rajakiran. However on the next day morning, one Mahantesh Bavikatti informed that the dead body of Rajakiran is lying in the bushes near the village. They also found the motorcycle besides him. Deceased had rope mark around his neck with crush injuries on face. It created suspicion in the mind of petitioner No.1 and others. After coming to know about the incident, Petitioner No.2 returned from Bangalore and filed complaint expressing her suspicion. However, the jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.

¶32

¶33

96/2021 as though it is a motor vehicle accident and proceeding with the investigation.

¶34

2.2. Petitioner No.2 has also filed one more

¶35

complaint dated 12.01.2022 addressed to Dy.S.P. Bailhongal expressing her suspicion that it is a murder case. However, the concerned police have not chosen to investigate the same. Therefore, petitioner No.2 filed complaint dated 21.01.2022 addressed to the Dy.S.P. reiterating her suspicion against Naveen Kashappa Bagalkot and Somalinga Kadakol and that it is a Supari killing at their behest. However, instead of conducting investigation to find out the truth, the respondents are proceeding with the investigation in Crime No.96/2021.

¶36

After due service of notice, respondent has appeared through HCGP and filed objections to the effect that based on the complaint filed by petitioner No.2, a case in Crime No.96/2021 came to be registered for the offences punishable under section 279, 304-A of

¶37

¶38

IPC. During the investigation, the investigating officer has taken the photographs of the spot where the dead body and the motorcycle were found. Postmortem examination was conducted. Statements of witnesses are recorded. After receipt of the complaint dated 12.01.2022 given by petitioner No.2, the Dy.S.P., Bailhongal, issued a memo to the investigating officer i.e. CPI Bailhongal to make special investigation team to ascertain the veracity of this complaint and file report within ten days. In the meanwhile, petitioner No.2 has given one more complaint dated 21.01.2022 suspecting the involvement of Naveen Bagalkot, Somalinga Kadakol and the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-49/V-0363.

¶39

3.1. However, after conducting thorough

¶40

investigation, prima facie it was found that it is a case of accidental death. The Postmortem report also state that death is due to head injury sustained as a result of blunt

¶41

force impact and the further opinion of the doctor state

¶42

¶43

that such injuries are possible in a road traffic accident.

¶44

The IMV report also rule out any mechanical defect resulting in the accident. Absolutely there is no material indicating involvement of Naveen Bagalkot, Somalinga Kadakol and owner of the motorcycle. However, since the owner of the motorcycle i.e. Parasappa Bhimappa Gotur did not get the vehicle insured and allowed deceased,who was not holding a valid driving license to drive the vehicle, a charge sheet is filed against him for the offences punishable under section 129, 177, 146, 196, 3 read with 181, 5 read with 180 of M.V. Act. There

¶45

is no substance in the petition and prays to dismiss the same.

¶46

Heard arguments and perused the records.

¶47

The incident has taken place on the

¶48

intervening night of 24/25.12.2021. At that time, petitioner No.2, who is the complainant and the mother of deceased was at Bangalore. After coming from

¶49

¶50

Bangalore, she has filed the complaint on 25.12.2021 and at 6.00 pm, it was registered in Crime No.96/2021 and investigation was conducted. The statements of the witnesses reveal that on 24.12.2021, there was some Pooja festival at Ayyappa Swami Temple and throughout the day, deceased was engaged in the temple activities. It has also come in the evidence that on that day, more than once he has consumed alcohol and after taking Rs.200/- from Naveen Bagalkot and borrowing the motorcycle promising to return within a short time and leaving his cell phone with said Naveen Bagalkot, he left the place. After waiting for long time and searching for him, when deceased did not return, Naveen Bagalkot went to the house of petitioner No.1, who is the uncle of deceased and informed him about deceased having taken the motorcycle, he returned the cell phone and went back. Only on the next day morning, the dead body of the deceased along with the motorcycle was found by the side of the road.

¶51

¶52

In fact, the investigating officer has

¶53

recovered two tetra packets of Director Special whisky from the pocket of half-pant of the deceased. The postmortem examination of the deceased states that the death was due to the head injury sustained by the deceased due to blunt force and such injury is possible in a road traffic accident.

¶54

Even though, the petitioner suspect the

¶55

involvement of Naveen Bagalkot, Somaling Kadakol and the owner of the motorcycle in question and claim that they might have got killed the deceased through contract killer, none of the complaints state as to whether there was any ill-will or enmity between the said persons and the deceased. No reasons are forthcoming for the complainant to suspect them. In fact, the charge sheet reveal that on 24.12.2021, deceased moved along with Naveen Bagalkot and Somaling Kadakol. In fact, Naveen Bagalkot had borrowed the motorcycle from accused No.2-Parasappa

¶56

¶57

Gotur. The only charges leveled against him is that he

¶58

did not cover the vehicle with the valid insurance policy and allowed it to be driven by the deceased, who was not holding a valid driving licence.

¶59

After receipt of the subsequent complaints,

¶60

the investigating officer has secured the opinion of the medical officer, who conducted postmortem examination to ascertain whether such injuries are possible in a road traffic accident. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that ligature mark was found around the neck of the deceased and he was killed by strangulation is not supported by the postmortem examination. Absolutely there is no supporting material placed on record by the petitioners even to suspect the involvement of Naveen Bagalkot, Somaling Kadakol and Parasappa Gotur so as to interfere in exercise of the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct further

¶61

investigation.

¶62

¶63

9. In the result, the petition fails and

¶64

accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The petition is hereby dismissed.

¶67

In view of the disposal of the matter,

¶68

pending interlocutory applications, if any, do

¶69

not survive for consideration and are disposed

¶70

of accordingly.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

YAN

Shri Shrishail S/O Shivalingppa Sangolli v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shrishail S/O Shivalingppa Sangolli 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Srinivas Manjunath Shetty Vs Asha Srinivas Shetty

Smt. Shakunthala W/O Kallappa Hosamani Vs M/S Gandhinagar Urban Co. -Operative

Dr Sunanda W/O Vasant Kabbur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Bhageerathi Alias Poonam Vs the State of Karnataka

Devadit W/O Agnel Andrade Vs State of Karnataka

Priyanka W/O Nishan Dodagoudar Vs the State of Karnataka