Allowed

Amit Basavant Chougule v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024CRL.P/102697/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet and proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that the investigating officer, who was also the injured victim, violated the rule of bias. Lack of independent identification, medical evidence, and basis for naming the accused necessitated quashing.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet and further proceedings in C.C.No.762/2020 are quashed so far as the petitioner/accused No.8 is concerned.

Amit Basavant Chougule Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13182 CRL.P No. 102697 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102697 OF 2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

AMIT BASAVANT CHOUGULE, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MAHADWAROAD, DIST: BELAGAVI - 01.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RAM . P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MARKET POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING DHARWAD – 11.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶13

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE CHARGE SHEET AND PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.762/020 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 153(A), 324, 332, 353, 427, R/W 149 OF IPC, AND 2(A) OF K.P.D.P. ACT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE II JMFC, BELAGAVI, MARKET P.S. BELAGAVI, CRIME NO.315/2017 AS AGAINST ACCUSED NO.8 HAS PRESENTED THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13182 CRL.P No. 102697 of 2024

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Accused No.8 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for brevity) praying to quash the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No.762/2020 pending on the file of the learned II JMFC, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 153(A), 324, 332, 353 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity) and Section 2(A) of the Karnataka Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶22

The case came to be registered in Crime No.315/2017 of Market Police Station, Belagavi against 80-100 unknown persons for the aforesaid offences. The said case came to be registered on the complaint filed by Sri. R.B.Soudhagar, PSI of Market Police Station, Belagavi.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13182 CRL.P No. 102697 of 2024

¶24

After completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against these petitioners and other accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the petitioner/accused No.8 has challenged the filing of charge-sheet and its further proceedings, in this petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per the averments of the complaint, one Sri. Prashant S., Police inspector of Market Police, is the injured victim and he himself receives the complaint filed by Sri. R.B.Soudhagar, PSI, registered the same and conducted the further investigation, also drew mahazar and recorded the statements and further statements of the witnesses. Since the said Prashant S., Police Inspector, is the victim in the case, the investigation by him is not fair and biased. There is no basis for arraigning the petitioner as accused. The name of the petitioner has been stated by the witnesses in their further statements. There is no basis for stating the name of the petitioner by the witnesses in their further statements. Investigating agency has not

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13182 CRL.P No. 102697 of 2024

¶27

conducted test identification parade. There is no wound certificate or MLC to show that Prashant S., Police Inspector, is injured in the incident. There is no valuation certificate to show that there was damage of more than Rs.50/- to attract the offence under Section 427 of IPC. Except police officials there are no other independent eye witnesses, who have seen the petitioner committing the alleged offences. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that in the further statement, the witnesses have stated the name of the petitioner and other accused being involved in the commission of alleged offences. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the charge-sheet material has taken cognizance against the petitioner and other accused. There are no grounds for quashing the charge sheet as sought for. She further submits that the petitioner can seek discharge. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶29

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13182 CRL.P No. 102697 of 2024

¶30

There was a communal clash between two

¶31

groups which is alleged to have been controlled by the complainant and one Sri. Prashant S, Police Inspector. On perusal of the complaint filed by Sri. R.B.Soudhagar, PSI of Market Police Station, Belagavi, indicates that Sri.Prashant S., Police Inspector, came to the spot and tried to pacify the quarrel, at that time, there was stone pelting towards them and a stone hit on the chest of Sri.Prashant S., Police Inspector, and also the pelting of stones caused the injuries to other Police Officials. In the said complaint it is stated that there are 40-50 Hindus and 40-50 Muslims being involved in the said communal clash

¶32

and in the said incident, there was damage to the Government jeep bearing registration No.KA-22/G-0934. As per the complaint filed by the Sri.R.B.Soudhagar, PSI, Market Police Station, Belagavi, Sri. Prashant S., Police Inspector, was injured along with other Police Officials. The said complaint has been received by the very said Prashant S., Police Inspector, and he registered the case, prepared the FIR and sent same to the jurisdictional

¶33

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13182 CRL.P No. 102697 of 2024

¶34

Magistrate. The very said Prashant S., Police Inspector, recorded the further statements of complainant, statements of other Police Officials and further statements of police officials and he has drawn the spot mahazar. On the basis of the said investigation done by Prashant S. Police Inspector, charge sheet came to be filed by one Sri. S.S.Simani, PSI, Market Police Station, Belagavi. The registration of the case and the entire investigation has been done by Prashant S., Police Inspector, who is stated to be injured in the incident and he is the victim. Though, he being a injured victim, registered the case and conducted the investigation. On the basis of which another police official filed charge sheet. The said aspect has affected the fair investigation. There is Latin Maxim “Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet” that is “no one should be made a judge in his own cause”. It is popularly known as the rule against bias. It is the minimal requirement of the natural justice that the authority giving decision must be composed of impartial persons, acting fairly, without prejudice and bias.

¶35

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13182 CRL.P No. 102697 of 2024

¶36

Apart from that the name of the petitioner has

¶37

been stated by the complainant and other witnesses in their further statements. The complainant and other witnesses in their statements have not stated the physical appearance of the persons or that they can identify the persons who were involved in the incident. What is the basis for stating the names of these petitioners in their further statements is not forthcoming in the investigation papers. All the witnesses including the complainant in their further statements have only named the petitioner and other accused stating that they are responsible for communal clash which had taken place in Kadak Galli, Jalgar Galli, Shastri Chowk, Chavat Galli, Nana Patil Chowk. What is the basis for mentioning the name of the petitioner in the further statements of the complainant and other witnesses, is not forthcoming either in the statements or in any investigation papers.

¶38

For the said reasons, the charge sheet and

¶39

further proceedings against the petitioner for the aforesaid

¶40

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13182 CRL.P No. 102697 of 2024

¶41

offences requires to be quashed. In the result, I pass the

¶42

following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal procedure Code is allowed.

¶45

The charge-sheet and further proceedings in C.C.No.762/2020 by II JMFC, Belagavi Court, are quashed so far as petitioner/accused No.8 is concerned.

¶46

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶47

Kmv

¶48

CT:ANB

Amit Basavant Chougule v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Basavant Chougule 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

Shivappa S/O Fakirappa Kwari Vs Smt.Kasturi W/O Basappa Kuri

Siddappa Vs Sunil Arjun Rajai

The Divisional Manager Vs Channappa S/O Sidlingappa Dharwad

Maruti S/O. Hanamantappa Ningappa Dhoddamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishwanath Khandelwal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mallikakjan S/O Babusab Nadaf Vs Smt. Sana Alia Asma W/O Mallikjan Nadaf