Allowed

Sri R Shivalingappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2023CRL.P/6945/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash prosecution against accused No.10 in C.C. 305/2019 for theft and IDDA offences. Court held that since proceedings against co-accused No.11 were quashed in coordinate benches, petitioner accused deserves analogous treatment regarding eviction of gang that transported iron ore.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.10 in C.C.No.305/2019 pending trial before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru.

Sri R Shivalingappa Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34540 CRL.P No. 6945 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6945 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. R. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, HEAD CONSTABLE (CHC - 1164) PILLEKERANAHALI VILLAGE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS RAMPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. SHANMUKAPPA D.H. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NEAR BASAPPA HOSPITAL, B.L.GOWDA LAYOUT CHITRADURGA - 577 001

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.305/2019 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.10/2019 OF RAMPURA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:34540 CRL.P No. 6945 of 2020

¶19

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MOLAKALMURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner/accused No.10 has challenged the prosecution launched against him in C.C.No.305/2019 pending trial before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 120B of IPC and Sections 21(1), 21(4), 21(4A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

¶23

It is alleged that on 28.01.2019, the respondent No.1 stopped a lorry and found that the accused were transporting iron ore. The person in-charge of the lorry and other associates ran away. After investigation, it was found that the accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 had all hatched a criminal conspiracy to steal iron ore in Bheemasamudra and Hireguntanoor and were transporting such stolen iron ores in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-34E-4579, KA-17-E-6759 and KA-16-SI-3337. The accused

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34540 CRL.P No. 6945 of 2020

¶25

Nos.10 and 11 were helping the other accused to pass through the road without being detected. Therefore, the charge-sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and registered a criminal case in C.C.No.305/2019 and issued process to the accused.

¶26

When this petition was listed for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in so far as accused No.11 is concerned, this Court entertained Crl.P.No.6451/2019 and Crl.P.No.6452/2019 and had quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused No.11. He therefore, contends that the allegations against the petitioner/accused No.10 was that he was helping the other accused to pass through the road and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be treated alike.

¶27

The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand did not dispute that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had quashed the proceedings against the accused No.11.

¶28

In that view of the matter, this petitioner/accused No.10 is also entitled to be treated alike and the impugned

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:34540 CRL.P No. 6945 of 2020

¶31

prosecution qua the petitioner/accused No.10 deserves to be quashed.

¶32

In view of the above, this petition is allowed . The impugned prosecution of the petitioner/accused No.10 in C.C.No.305/2019 pending trial before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 120B of IPC and Sections 21(1), 21(4), 21(4A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is quashed.

¶33

The prosecution against the other accused shall

¶34

continue. The Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial as early as possible.

¶35

In view of the disposal of the petition, pending

¶36

I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri R Shivalingappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Shivalingappa v. 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

Sri Sunil H v Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Shahnaz Begum Vs the Authorised Officer

M/S Sasken Technologies Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-6

Sri Nagesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Nayeem Ahmed Vs State by

Sri. R Shivalingappa Vs State of Karnataka