Quashed

Sri. Dhanraj Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2023CRL.P/1321/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioner/accused No.8 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. finding the charge sheet lacked incriminating material regarding his presence or overt acts in the alleged arson, rendering the probability of conviction remote.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.464/2022 relating to petitioner/accused No.8 are quashed.

Sri. Dhanraj Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:33641 CRL.P No. 1321 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1321 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. DHANRAJ REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. RAMA REDDY, R/AT NO.931, KACHARAKANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 084.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHREERAM T NAYAK., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KADUGONDANAHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SPP HIGH COURT, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

SRI. BHADRAPPA, SON OF NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT GARAPALLI GRAMA, CHANDAPURA POST, CHINCHOLI TALUK, KALABURAGI – 585 307, KARNATAKA.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.AMITH SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:33641 CRL.P No. 1321 of 2023

¶17

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FINAL REPORT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.115/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.143, 147, 188, 436, 120-B, 427, 504, 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC ALONG WITH SEC.2 OF PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT 1981 BEFORE THE XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE – C AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner/accused No.8 is sought to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 188, 436, 120(B), 427, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

¶21

Initially, FIR was registered against the unknown persons alleging that, the temporary shanties put up on the Government land which is situated adjacent to Shrirama Mandira were set on fire on 28.03.2020 were destroyed by setting fire. The police during the course of the investigation recorded statement of the complainant, the only eye witness to the incident and also the other witnesses. Thereafter, the police laid the charge sheet arraigning the petitioner as accused No.8 alleging that he along with other accused set the shanties on fire on the date of the incident. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, petitioner/accused No.8 is the son-in-law of accused No.2, who is the Trustee of the Ram Mandira Trust, which is situated

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33641 CRL.P No. 1321 of 2023

¶24

adjacent to the Government Land on which the temporary shanties were put up. He further submits that, in the absence of any material or statement by the eye witness that the petitioner/accused No.8 set fire to the shanties put up on the Government land, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences alleged against him.

¶25

Learned HCGP for the respondent-State submits that the charge sheet material discloses that the petitioner along with other accused set fire to the shanties put on the Government land and the same constitute the commission of offence alleged against the petitioner/accused No.8 and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant on instruction submits that, the defacto complainant was made to sign on the FIR without knowing the contents of the FIR and he has not witnessed the incident.

¶27

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶28

The alleged incident had taken place on 24.03.2020 on the eve of the lockdown was declared. The FIR was lodged on 01.05.2020 against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of the defacto complainant, who is alleged to be the eye witness to the incident and in his statement he has not spoken about the specific overtact of the petitioner/accused No.8 setting fire to the temporary shanties or he was present on the spot on the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:33641 CRL.P No. 1321 of 2023

¶31

date of incident and the other witnesses are just hearsay witnesses who have given statement before the police on the statement alleged to have been disclosed by the defacto complainant. The charge sheet does not contain any material that the petitioner/accused No.8 had set fire to the temporary shanties constructed on the Government land nor he was present on the spot as on the date of the incident. The defacto complainant has stated that he has not witnessed the incident and without knowing the contents he was made to sign the FIR.

¶32

Therefore, in the absence of any material, much less incriminating material, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences alleged against him, since the probability of his conviction is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶35

ii. The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.464/2022 on the file of 27th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru insofar it relates to petitioner/accused No.8 is hereby quashed.

¶36

RKA

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94

Sri. Dhanraj Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Dhanraj Reddy 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

Gilbert Sequera Vs State of Karnataka

Amster Labs Vs State at the Instance the Drugs Inspector

Mr. Mohammed Basheer Vs the State of Karnataka

Radhakrishna Vs State of Karnataka by

Lohith v Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Vageesh G M Vs the State of Karnataka by Rajajinagar Police Station