Quashed

Shivil Bastayavn Silva S/O Bastayavn v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024CRL.P/100943/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka Bench, Dharwad quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.549/2020, holding that allegations were common with co-accused already acquitted in a related case.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C. No.549/2020 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada, are quashed.

Shivil Bastayavn Silva S/O Bastayavn Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12588 CRL.P No. 100943 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100943 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHIVIL BASTAYAVN SILVA, S/O. BASTIAYAVN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEERGADDE, NEAR CHURCH, MUNDALLI, BHATKAL 581 320, UTTARA KANNADA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. R.NAGENDRA NAIK & SRI. LINGESH KATTEMANE, ADVS.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶14

STATE BY BHATKAL RURAL PS, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD - 580011.

¶15

BHARATHI H M

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

ROJALIN W/O. BASTAV D. SOUZA AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O. NEERAGADDE NEAR MANDAHALLI CHURCH, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: KARWAR-581320.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CC NO.549/2020 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHATKAL, UTTARA KANNADA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 504, 354-B, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME NO.188/2016 AND QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IN CC NO.549/2020 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHATKAL, UTTARA KANNADA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 504, 354-B, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME NO.188/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12588 CRL.P No. 100943 of 2024

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

¶27

No.3 praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.549/2020 pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 354B, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for short).

¶28

Charge-sheet has been filed against this petitioner/accused No.3 and accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 354B, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and a case came to be registered in C.C. No.311/2017. The present petitioner/accused No.3 participated in the said criminal case and during its pendency, after recording of evidence of PW.5, he remained

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12588 CRL.P No. 100943 of 2024

¶30

absconding and therefore, the case against him came to be split up and now pending in C.C. No.549/2020. The petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of C.C. No.549/2020 on the ground that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 have been acquitted in C.C. No.311/2017 by judgment dated 29.07.2022.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations against all the accused persons are common and therefore the benefit of acquittal is also to be extended to the petitioner herein.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused the material placed on record.

¶33

In the judgment dated 29.07.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.311/2017, the learned Judge while acquitting accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 has observed thus:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12588 CRL.P No. 100943 of 2024

¶36

“ 17. It is to be noticed that the prosecution is not seized. All those weapons, which were brought by the Accused to damage the said fence as per the deposition of PW1 and PW3 were not seized. On perusal of the deposition of PW.1, she deposed that, she has given a further statement before the investigating officer stating that, the Accused did not use any criminal force to pull her saree and outrage her modesty. The police did not seize the materials used to damage the fence. As per the deposition of I.O. who inspected spot deposed very clearly that there was no any signs of damage cause to the fence. The panchas also deposed that the police did not seize any plants, planted attaching fence. On perusal of the deposition of the PW1, it is quite understandable that the fence does not belong them. Henceforth, the defence taken up by the learned counsel for the Accused regarding pendency of Civil suit and the vengeance between the parties cannot be ruled out. It is quiet evident that, the panchanama was drawn as per the instruction of PW3 not as per the instruction of PW1. In such circumstance, the evidence placed on record by the prosecution cannot be admitted to prove a case against the Accused. In such circumstance, I answer point No.1 to 5 Negatively.”

¶37

petitioner/accused No.3 and the allegations against

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12588 CRL.P No. 100943 of 2024

¶39

accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 are common, the petitioner/accused No.3 is also entitled to said benefit of acquittal as of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6.

¶40

In view of the above, the following

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C. No.549/2020 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada, are quashed.

¶43

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶44

Kmv

¶45

CT:ANB

Shivil Bastayavn Silva S/O Bastayavn v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivil Bastayavn Silva S/O Bastayavn 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

Santhosh S/O. Jayappa Vs Manjunath B S/O. Lingaraju

The Executive Engineer Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer MP-3

Sri.Ramalingappa S/O Vs Sri.Arjunappa S/O

Smt. Hajira Begum W/O Late M D Mohammed Ali Vs Smt. Afshana Zeba W/O Mohammed Ghouse

Sachin S/O. Siddappa Gadikar Vs Smt. Sandya W/O. Tanaji Sane

Sri Deepak S/O Late Veerabhadrappa Jambotkar Vs the State of Karnataka