Dismissed

Prakash Gangappa Badiger v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2023CRL.P/6608/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that the petitioner, who absconded and faced a split-up charge sheet, cannot rely on the acquittal of other accused to quash his trial. He must appear and face the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to appear before the Magistrate.

Prakash Gangappa Badiger Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43377 CRL.P No. 6608 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6608 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRAKASH GANGAPPA BADIGER, S/O GANGAPPA BADIGER, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NAVADAGI, MUDDEBIHAL, BIJAPUR DISTRICT - 586 214.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE, REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

H. BADHARINATH, S/O SWAMIRAYACHAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO.36, TELECOM LAYOUT IN FRONT OF GANESSHA TEMPLE, SRIGANDHADA KAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R1)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43377 CRL.P No. 6608 of 2021

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.10079/2015 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XXXIX ACMM COURT, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCE P/U/S.380,411,413,454,457 OF IPC FOR THE REASON STATED ABOVE.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched in C.C.No.10079/2015 pending trial before the XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore for the offences punishable under Section 454, 457, 411, 413 and 380 of I.P.C.

¶21

Based on information furnished by the respondent

¶22

No.2 on 21.04.2014, a case in Crime No.209/2014 was registered by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 454, 457 of I.P.C.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43377 CRL.P No. 6608 of 2021

¶24

The respondent No.1 investigated the offences and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 411, 413 and 380 of I.P.C. The petitioner was arraigned as accused No.4 and was showed as absconding. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and other accused and registered C.C.No.3098/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 411, 413 and 380 of I.P.C. Since the petitioner was absconding, the case against him was split-up and C.C.No.10079/2015 was registered. The petitioner being aggrieved by the prosecution launched against him and the order taking cognizance of the offences, has filed this criminal petition.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 411 and 413 of I.P.C and that the other accused charged for the offences under Section 380 of I.P.C., have been acquitted of the offences. He, therefore submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to be treated alike. He

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43377 CRL.P No. 6608 of 2021

¶27

submits that though he assisted the Investigating Officer and co-operated with him, yet he was shown as absconding accused and a split-up charge sheet was filed against him. He, therefore, contends that the impugned prosecution would serve no useful purpose and prays that the prosecution launched against him be quashed.

¶28

The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner had absconded and had not appeared before the trial Court, even after the summons was served and therefore, the Court felt it appropriate to split-up the charge against the petitioner and registered C.C.No.10079/2015. He submits that if the accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted, the petitioner cannot seek for parity and claim that the prosecution should be quashed. He contends that, it is for the petitioner to appear before the concerned Magistrate and face the trial.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:43377 CRL.P No. 6608 of 2021

¶31

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶32

counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶33

The records disclose that the petitioner had absconded and had not appeared before the trial Court, which compelled the trial Court to split-up the charge against the petitioner and register in C.C.No.10079/2015. If the petitioner has chosen to abstain from the proceedings, he cannot ride piggy back on the acquittal of the other accused, but is bound to face the consequences. He is bound to face trial before the Court and obtain an order of acquittal. However, the acquittal of the other accused is not a ground to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, as the nature of the offences, recoveries made, witnesses examined could vary.

¶34

Hence, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate. If the petitioner appears before the Magistrate and co-operates in the

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:43377 CRL.P No. 6608 of 2021

¶36

¶37

conduct of the trial, the Magistrate is directed to consider the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Trial Court is at liberty to impose suitable charges payable by petitioner to the witnesses for appearing in the case.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

PHM

Prakash Gangappa Badiger v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Gangappa Badiger 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

Sandhya Realtors Private Limited Vs the State by Marathalli Police Station

Smt. P.C. Rukmani Vs Namera K. Devaiah

Sri. Mallikarjunaiah Vs Smt. S.Chandrakala

Smt. Arpeetha Vs Panchayathi Development Officer

T.N. Prakash Vs Range Forest Officer

Sri N Rajendran Vs Sri N Ramesh Dead by Lrs