Dismissed

Manjunatha v. Lakshmamma

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2023CRL.P/6379/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR involving serious allegations of assault, injury, and other offences. The Court held that since serious allegations existed and the investigation was pending, the proceedings could not be quashed at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the criminal proceedings is dismissed as proceedings cannot be quashed at the stage of investigation due to serious allegations.

Manjunatha Vs Lakshmamma — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19688 CRL.P No. 6379 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6379 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATHA S/O HOMBE GOWDA, AGE: MAJOR, HULAGANA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

LAKSHMAMMA W/O HOMBE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT HULLANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573201.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, ARAKALAGUDU POLILCE STATION, ARAKALAGUDU, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201 REPRESENTED: BY HIGH COURT SPP

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. NAGARAJA REDDY,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶16

SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR RELATING TO THE CRIME NO.41/2018 ON PENDING FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, ARAKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:19688 CRL.P No. 6379 of 2018

¶20

UNDER SECTION 143, 323, 504, 324, 114, 506, 341, 354, 149 OF IPC, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1 AND TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned petition is filed by accused No.1 seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.0041/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) and JMFC, Arakalgud, Hassan for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 504, 324, 114, 506, 341, 354, 149 of IPC.

¶24

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶25

A crime came to be registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 504, 324, 114, 506, 341, 354, 149 of IPC. The prosecution case is that on 29.01.2018, the complainant along with her husband and children visited the Taluk office at around 10.30 a.m. and when they attempted to have discussion with one Smt. Doddatayamma, it is alleged that the petitioner along with other accused assaulted the complainant and in the said scuffle, the son of the complainant sustained serious injury and therefore, a crime is registered. Questioning the registration of

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:19688 CRL.P No. 6379 of 2018

¶27

¶28

the crime, the petitioner has filed the captioned petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 - complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Perused the First Information Report.

¶30

On examination of First Information Report, this Court would find that there are allegations against the petitioner also and therefore, at the stage of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings. The said serious allegations should be subject to the conclusion of the investigation by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, at this juncture, I am of the view that the proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶31

It is needless to say that in the event, where the charge-sheet is filed, it is always open for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the learned Magistrate. The order passed by this Court would not come in the way of petitioner in seeking appropriate reliefs. It is made clear that while

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:19688 CRL.P No. 6379 of 2018

¶34

considering such an application, the learned Magistrate shall

¶35

independently assess the matter and accordingly pass order.

¶36

For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Petition is dismissed .

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

PMR

¶41

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Manjunatha v. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha v. Lakshmamma

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. Upadhyay Naman Jaimanbhai Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri H M Nataraj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sundaramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Yaladalu Manoj Bopaiah Vs State of Karnataka by Madikeri Town Police Station

Sri S B Vijayananda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Laxmibai Chavan Vs Sri Gautam Chavan