Disposed

Ravishankar D v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2024CRL.P/1130/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashment of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court held no extraordinary circumstances existed for quashing and observed the petitioner should seek discharge before the trial court instead.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to file for discharge at the trial court; contentions kept open.

Ravishankar D Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5519 CRL.P No. 1130 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1130 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAVISHANKAR D, (MLA K.R. NAGAR CONSTITUENCY), S/O DODDASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KESTURU KOPPALU VILLAGE, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISRICT - 01.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SALIGRAMA POLICE STATION, MYSORE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01.

¶15

MAHESHA NAYAKA B.T S/O THAMMANNA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT BHERYA VILLAGE, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 01.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. S.P.P FOR R1)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.91/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 341, 504, 506 AND 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R. NAGAR, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5519 CRL.P No. 1130 of 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Petitioner is invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings now in C.C No.91/2023 arising from Crime No.52/2022 of Saligrama Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 504, 506, 149 of IPC. The petitioners are admittedly on bail.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the ingredients of the offences are militantly lacking in the charge sheet and the accompanying material; even if every thing is taken with face value, there is no probability of conviction; continuing the impugned proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but the abuse of process of court and of law and therefore, this court should intervene in the matter to prevent the same and meet the ends of justice. He presses into service an Apex Court decision in Mohammed Wajid vs. State of U.P. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5519 CRL.P No. 1130 of 2024

¶25

Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent No.1

¶26

opposes the petition contending that the Police having investigated into the matter have filed a bulky charge sheet, cognizance whereof is taken by the learned Judge of the court below; the contents of the charge sheet and the evidentiary material accompanying the same propel the impugned proceedings to the precincts of section 239 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein, the petitioner can seek discharge. He presses into service a recent decision of this court in Crl.P.No.7533/2023 between SRI.SIDDARAMAIAH VS. STATE , disposed off on 6.2.2024. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is broadly in agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of State. There are no extraordinary circumstances to treat this petition as a solitary class qua the one in Siddaramaiah supra , wherein for offences of comparable kind, the petitioners therein being similarly circumstanced,

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5519 CRL.P No. 1130 of 2024

¶29

have been relegated to the precincts of trial Judge to seek

¶30

discharge.

¶31

The vehement submission of counsel for the

¶32

petitioner that the observations of the Apex Court in Mohammed Wajid supra, more particularly in paragraphs 28 & 29 would come to the aid of his client, need not be examined by this court. The same can be pressed into service before the learned Magistrate of the court below. It is also open to the petitioner to take up all other contentions before the same Judge. The inherent power has got inherent limitations too and therefore, the same can be exercised sparingly. An accused cannot tap this power as a matter of course and an extraordinary case needs to be made out to deviate from this norm. No such case is made out in this petition. Added, the operational field for the petitioner before the court below is much wider.

¶33

In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed off with the above observations and liberty. Nothing

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:5519 CRL.P No. 1130 of 2024

¶35

¶36

mentioned herein above shall influence prayer of the

¶37

petitioner for discharge and all contentions are kept open.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

Ravishankar D v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravishankar D 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Siddaramaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jaggesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Munirathna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.D.K. Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Shailendra Beldale Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Authorised Officer