Allowed

Ramesh M v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2023CRL.P/2177/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for alleged criminal trespass and threatening. The court held that eye witnesses did not implicate the petitioner and the charge sheet lacked material particulars against him, making continuation an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in CC No.458/2019 against the petitioner were quashed.

Ramesh M Vs State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:31804 CRL.P No. 2177 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2177 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMESH M AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE MUNI REDDY R/O GONIGATTAPURA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SARJAPURA POLICE BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

Y.C. SANDEEP REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O Y.C. RAMA REDDY R/AT NO.678, 17TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH A CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI V.K. SATHYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:31804 CRL.P No. 2177 of 2023

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.458/2019 (CR.NO.114/2018) BY THE SARJAPURA POLICE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 504, 447, 34 OF IPC NOW THIS CASE IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner - accused No.1 is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 34, 506 of IPC.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner - accused No.1 along with other accused criminally trespassed into the land belonging to the defacto complainant and threatened the workers of the defacto complainant with dire consequence. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition by the accused No.1.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eye witnesses to the incident viz: CWs.2 to 4 have not spoken about the presence of the accused No.1, and in the absence of any allegation or material that, these petitioners along with other accused criminally trespassed into the subject land allegedly belonging to the defacto complainant, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:31804 CRL.P No. 2177 of 2023

¶24

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the charge sheet material discloses that this petitioner along with other accused criminally trespassed into the subject land and threatened CWs.2 to 4. Hence, the veracity of allegation can be considered at the time of trial and at this stage the same cannot be gone into.

¶25

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

Admittedly, the suit is pending between the respondent No.2 - defacto complainant and the brother of the petitioner herein and others. Initially FIR was registered against the accused No.1 alleging that he and other accused had criminally trespassed into the subject land. During the course of investigation, CWs.2 to 4, who are the eye witnesses to the incident in their statement have not spoken about the presence of the accused No.1, except alleging that the other accused criminally trespassed into the subject land. The charge sheet material does not disclose that these petitioners criminally trespassed into the subject land and threatened CWs.2 to 4, and in the absence of any material, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:31804 CRL.P No. 2177 of 2023

¶31

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.458/2019 pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural, insofar as it relates to the accused No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶32

iii) The learned Magistrate to proceed against other accused in accordance with law without being influenced any of the observations made in this order. The observations, if any, made is only for the purpose of this petition.

¶33

iv) All the contentions are kept open.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

BKM

Ramesh M v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh M v. State of Karnataka by

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

Mr. a. S. Prakash Vs Mr. K. Santhosh Kumar

Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Govindraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. M S Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Aditya S Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ashoka Krishnareddy, Vs the State of Karnataka