Dismissed

Mr Syed Khamar @ Syed Khamar Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2024CRL.P/12571/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of charge sheet under Sections 324 and 506 IPC citing delayed wound certificate and contradictions about the weapon used. The court held material was sufficient for framing charge and that it cannot conduct a mini trial or alter charges under Section 482. Petition dismissed with liberty to seek discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Syed Khamar @ Syed Khamar Pasha Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:3231 CRL.P No. 12571 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12571 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR SYED KHAMAR @ SYED KHAMAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED PEER R/AT NO.30-31, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NEHRU ROAD KUVEMPU ROAD, MANJUNATHANAGAR BENGALURU-560026

¶10

MR SYED FARAZ AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O SYED KHAMAR @ SYED KAMAR PASHA R/AT NO.30-31, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NEHRU ROAD KUVEMPU ROAD, MANJUNATHANAGAR BENGALURU-560026

¶11

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI SHASHI KUMAR G V, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶16

MR RAFIQ KHAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE MAJEED KHAN

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:3231 CRL.P No. 12571 of 2023

¶19

R/AT NO.147, 10TH MAIN, SHAMANNA GARDEN MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-560026

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA.A., HCGP FOR R1)

¶22

¶23

CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.27822/2023 ON THE FILE OF XLVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324 AND 506 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Issuance of notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶27

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

¶28

quashing the charge sheet dated 07.10.2023 in CC No.27822/2023 on the file of the XLVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Cr. No. 243/2023 registered by the Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State.

¶30

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint

¶31

of respondent No.2 the Police registered FIR for the offences

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3231 CRL.P No. 12571 of 2023

¶33

punishable under Sections 326 and 506 of IPC. After the investigation the Police have filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC. It is alleged by the Complainant that the accused persons assaulted with stone on the eye of the Complainant and he has sustained injuries and has taken treatment in Minto Hospital, Bengaluru. Case was registered against the petitioner and charge sheet is filed, which is under challenge.

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that though the FIR is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 506 of IPC, charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC. Though the Police have seized the stone, but the wound certificate says that the injury was caused by the fist by the known person. He further contends that the wound certificate is issued after a month on 24.08.2023 and the incident occurred on 22.07.2023. Therefore, the case is not meant for trial, hence, prayed for quashing the same.

¶35

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State prays to dismiss the petition.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:3231 CRL.P No. 12571 of 2023

¶38

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP and on perusal of the entire material on record, of course, a complaint came to be registered on the first information statement of the respondent No.2. Though the police have registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 506 of IPC, but they filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC. The panchanama was prepared by the Police, wherein it is shown that they seized a stone on the spot, which the petitioners said to have used for assaulting on the eye of the Complainant. However, there is a delay in issuing the wound certificate. The stone was seized by the police on the say of the Complainant, FIR is registered, panchanama is drawn to show that stone was seized and wound certificate is received and thereafter after investigation the police have filed the charge sheet.

¶39

The material placed on record is sufficient for framing of charge. There is little contradiction in respect of assault on the injured whether he has fisted with the hands, it attracts Section 323 of IPC, or if he used a weapon or stone, it attracts Section 324 of IPC.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:3231 CRL.P No. 12571 of 2023

¶42

The charge sheet is placed before the Magistrate. The Magistrate to verify the charge sheet material irrespective of the offences made out by the Police Officer in the final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. The Magistrate is to verify and frame proper charges and this Court cannot alter the charges in the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial and disbelieve the case by appreciating the evidence on record, by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶43

Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and it is dismissed.

¶44

However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Magistrate under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Mr Syed Khamar @ Syed Khamar Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr Syed Khamar @ Syed Khamar Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghouse Mohammedeen Vs State

Sri H B Harish Vs State of Karnataka by

Narayanagowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish S M Vs State by Byatarayanapura

Mahesh @ Mahesha. M Vs State by Chamarajnagar Town Ps

Smt Zareena Haneef Vs State of Karnataka