Allowed

Yogananda T v. State by Mandya West Police Mandya

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2023CRL.P/1798/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against a constable for offences of criminal intimidation and illegal confinement. The Court found the delay in lodging the FIR implausible and implied a motive to falsely implicate the accused.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceeding in CC No.3001/2021 arising out of Crime No.71/2016 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, is hereby quashed.

Yogananda T Vs State by Mandya West Police Mandya — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27055 CRL.P No. 1798 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1798 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

YOGANANDA T S/O THIRUMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HEAD CONSTABLE DISTRICT WIRELESS SECTION MANDYA - 571 401 NOW WORKING AT ASI, DISTRICT WIRELESS SECTION RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE BY MANDYA WEST POLICE MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

CHOODAMANI N S S/O DODDABADAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS POLICE INSPECTOR, WIRELESS DISTRICT WIRELESS SECTION MANDYA - 571 401.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:27055 CRL.P No. 1798 of 2022

¶20

ASIDE THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MANDYA IN C.C.NO.3001/2021, DATED 22.06.2021 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.71/2016 OF WEST POLICE MANDYA, AGAINST THE PETITIONER, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 353, 504 AND 332 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner - accused No.1, who is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 353, 332 of IPC, is before this Court.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant was having a grudge against the accused for having issued a memo stating that, the accused herein was not sending wireless message correctly.

¶25

On 17.3.2016, when the complainant was sitting in the Control Room, at that time, the accused abused him in filthy language, assaulted him physically, and restrained the defacto complainant from discharging his official duties. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27055 CRL.P No. 1798 of 2022

¶28

The alleged incident has taken place on 17.3.2016, and the FIR was lodged on 30.3.2016, and the explanation offered for the delay in lodging the FIR is that, the defacto complainant was deputed on duty for Melukote VairamudI Utsav and Adichunchanagiri Jathra. The explanation offered by the defacto complainant is not plausible, and in the absence of any plausible explanation, it is implied that, the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the petitioner - accused herein. The eye witnesses to the incident are all police personnel, and in the FIR, there is no mention with regard to the presence of eye witness to the incident. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶31

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.3001/2021 arising out of Crime No.71/2016 pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, is hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

BKM

Yogananda T v. State by Mandya West Police Mandya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogananda T v. State by Mandya West Police Mandya

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

H Hamza Vs State of Karnataka

N Srilakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Radhakrishna Kamath, Vs the State of Karnataka

Musthafa Vs State of Karnataka

Anand v Vs State by Ccb (Eow) Bangalore

Sanjay Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka