Dismissed

Sagar S/O Dasharath Madar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023CRL.P/100882/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash proceedings in C.C. No.1775/2022. Court rejected submission that absence of overact allegations in complaint warranted quashing, noting charge sheet evidenced specific allegations of assault and abuse.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is dismissed.

Sagar S/O Dasharath Madar Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13435 CRL.P No. 100882 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100882 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SAGAR S/O DASHARATH MADAR,

¶10

AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MADARKHANDI, TQ: JAMAKANDI, DIST: BHAGALKOT-587119.

¶11

SMT. RENUKA DASHARATH MADAR,

¶12

AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MADARKHANDI, TQ: JAMAKANDI, DIST: BHAGALKOT-587119.

¶13

SRI. YELEEJAR S/O DASHARATH MADAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MADARKHANDI, TQ: JAMAKANDI, DIST: BHAGALKOT-587119.

¶14

… PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SANTOSH BIRANAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶17

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.11.23 16:48:08 +0530

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, JAMAKHANDI RURAL POLICE, R/BY ADDL. SPP,

¶20

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD.

¶21

BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVAPPA MADAR, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O: MADARKHANDI, TQ: JAMAKANDI, DIST: BHAGALKOT-587119.

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;

¶24

SRI. P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13435 CRL.P No. 100882 of 2023

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMAKHANDI, DIST BAGALKOT, INITIATED IN C.C NO.1775/2022 UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 504, 323, 506 R/W SECTION 149 IPC. IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Petitioners have sought for quashing of

¶30

proceedings in C.C.No.1775/2022 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Jamakhandi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”, for brevity).

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶32

Respondent No.2 filed first information and case came to be registered in Crime No.105/2020 of Jamakhandi, Rural Police Station against these petitioners (accused No.2 to 4) for

¶33

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13435 CRL.P No. 100882 of 2023

¶34

the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC. On the basis of the charge sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and case came to be registered in C.C.No.1775/2022 and it is pending on the file of Principle Civil Judge and JMFC-Court Jamkhandi. The petitioners (accused No.2 to 4) have sought for quashing of the said criminal case.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that the reading of the entire averments of the complaint, there is no allegation against these petitioners. In the entire complaint, there is allegation against petitioner/accused No.1. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2

¶37

and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State, both submits that CWs.3 and 5 to 9 are the eye witnesses to the incident and they have specifically stated that overacts of these petitioners. CWs.5 and 6 are injured in the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13435 CRL.P No. 100882 of 2023

¶40

incident. They contended that merely because of no overact is mentioned in the averments of the

¶41

first information is no ground for quashing of the proceedings. The charge sheet material contains the specific allegation against these petitioners. With this, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶42

Even though there are no overacts in the averments of the complaint but the statements of the witnesses namely CWs. 3 and 5 to 9 have specifically stated that the overacts of these petitioners, that they abused and assaulted the

¶43

injured and the complainant. CWs. 5 and 6 are injured in the incident. As per the charge sheet, petitioners and accused Nos.1 and 5 are formed unlawful assembly and abused the complainant and threatened to kill. Accused Nos.2 and 4 have assaulted one Basavaraj (CW.1) with hands on cheek and back, accused Nos.2 and 4 are assaulted the Siddaling (CW.6) who came to pacify the quarrel and accused No.3 assaulted CW.5, who

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13435 CRL.P No. 100882 of 2023

¶45

came to pacify the quarrel and abused her in filthy language. The said overacts have been stated by CWs.1, 3 to 9 in their statements recorded by the Police. On perusal of the charge sheet material, there is case against these petitioners for the offences alleged against them. There are no

¶46

grounds for quashing the proceedings. In the result, the following

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petition is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

AC CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sagar S/O Dasharath Madar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar S/O Dasharath Madar 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

Laxman Vs Town Municipal Council

Smt. Julekhabi W/O Miyajan Inamdar W/O Miyajan Inamadar Vs State of Karnataka

Kallappa S/O Laxman Lakkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj S/O Shekappa Mattihalli @ Guddadahalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. S Geetha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Ameena Kausar Ansari W/O Kausar Ansari Vs State of Karnataka