Dismissed

Manoj Naik S/O Sura Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024CRL.P/101390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in a cases involving IPC offences. The court held that alleged procedural lapses in reporting the arrest of a soldier do not justify quashing the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Manoj Naik S/O Sura Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18210 CRL.P No. 101390 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101390 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANOJ NAIK S/O. SURA NAIK, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. SOLDIER, R/O. HARSIKATTA, TQ. SIDDAPURA, U.K.-581355 NOW AT IHQ OF MOD (ARMY) “C” - WING, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110010.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANKIT RAMESH DESAI AND SRI. T.M. NADAF, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, BY ITS POLICE SUB INSPECTOR SIRSI SUB DIVISION U. K. DISTRICT ALSO REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶14

KERIYA KANNA NAIK S/O. KANNA, AGE. 82 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED PERSON, R/O. HARSIKATTA SIDDAPUR, TQ. UTTAR KANNADA KARNATAKA.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18210 CRL.P No. 101390 of 2024

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., 1973 SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.15/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDDAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 323, 354, 427, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet dated 03.02.2004 in C.C. No.15/2024 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Siddapur in respect of offence under Sections 323, 354, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.3.

¶23

It is relevant to note that earlier a petition was filed challenging the FIR dated 17.11.2023. The said petition was withdrawn as the charge sheet was filed

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18210 CRL.P No. 101390 of 2024

¶25

before the petition to quash the FIR came up for hearing. Thereafter, the present petition is filed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T.M. Nadaf urges before this Court that the allegations in the complaint against the present petitioner Manoj Naik is fake and not specific. He would further submit that, no overt action is attributed against the petitioner in the FIR and in the panchanama drawn on the date of FIR i.e. on 17.11.2023. The complainant does not state that the present petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 149, 427 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.

¶27

It is his submission that the petitioner is working in Armed Forces and the petitioner happened to be in his native place on the date of alleged incident and the petitioner is wrongly made as accused in the FIR with an intention to humiliate the petitioner. It is also stated that the procedure relating to arrest of a solider by the civil police is not followed by reporting the arrest to the

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18210 CRL.P No. 101390 of 2024

¶29

concerned nearest commandant officer. He would refer to Rule 397 of Defence Service Regulations. He would further submit that the only allegation of trespass found in the statement of the complainant recorded in the panchanama is also omitted in the charge sheet as such, there is no scope to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 149, 323, 354, 504, 427 of Indian Penal Code.

¶30

Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the incident has taken place and in the complaint, the name of the accused No.3/petitioner is mentioned and the chargesheet contains statement of independent witnesses who have witnessed the incident and they have also stated that the petitioner/accused No.3 committed the offences mentioned in the chargesheet.

¶31

It is also urged, merely because Section 447 is

¶32

ommitted in the chargesheet, that does not mean that the chargesheet in respect of remaining offences have to be

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18210 CRL.P No. 101390 of 2024

¶34

quashed. He would urge that there was a common intention on the part of accused No.3/petitioner and in the presence of the remaining accused, the accused committed the acts mentioned in the complaint.

¶35

This Court has perused the records and the chargesheet.

¶36

The law relating to exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well established. The Court would sparingly exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482. Unless, it is made out that the ingredients of the chargesheet do not constitute any offences, and the incident narrated in the chargesheet are highly unlikely to have occurred, the Court will not interfere in the process of investigation and trial, based on the FIR and chargesheet. At this juncture, this Court is not in a position to say that the statement given by the alleged eye witnesses is a false statement so as to quash the chargesheet.

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18210 CRL.P No. 101390 of 2024

¶38

Though, learned counsel Sri. T.M. Nadaf appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Defence Service Regulation Rules mandate the District Magistrate to report to the nearest Commandant to report the incident of arrest of a soldier by the Police and omission on the part of District Magistrate to report the arrest, that itself, is not a ground to quash the chargesheet filed by the Police. Under which provision of law, the Police were required to intimate the arrest of soldier to the District Magistrate is not pointed out. Assuming that the Police were under the obligation to report the arrest of soldier to the District Magistrate, that itself, is not a ground to hold that incident has not taken place and the accused No.3/petitioner was not present at the time of alleged incident. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner are the contentions to be adjudicated after trial. At this juncture, this Court cannot interfere in the trial which is scheduled to take place pursuant to the chargesheet.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC-D:18210 CRL.P No. 101390 of 2024

¶41

Under these circumstances, the petition is

¶42

dismissed.

¶43

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶44

CHS,RKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Manoj Naik S/O Sura Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Naik S/O Sura Naik 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

Smt Kavita W/O Mallappa Totannavar Vs Smt Paravva W/O Channabasappa Talwai

Shri.Ramachandra Vs Smt.Kamalavva

Basangouda S/O Fakkiragouda Patil Vs Smt.Akkavva W/O Guragouda Patil

M/S Samrat Feeds Pvt. Ltd., Vs Shri. Ireneu Gonsalves

Hanamant S/O. Shivappa Kulgod Vs Smt.Kamala W/O. Girimalla Gokak

Smt Anita W/O Anil Ghodake Vs Sri. Madhukar Dadoba Kamble