In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petitioners' plea to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that prima facie materials, including injuries and property damage, supported the prosecution's version.
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:30756 CRL.P No. 1409 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1409 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
S/O M J RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT MAGEHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O M R PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT MAGEHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
R/AT GENDEHALLY VILLAGE,
NC: 2024:KHC:30756 CRL.P No. 1409 of 2020
BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
5. SOMASHEKARA
S/O LAKSHMANACHARI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT BINDENAHALLY VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
6. MOHANA
S/O MANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT KUDUMANAHALLY VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
7. SANTHOSH
S/O RAMESHGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT MAGEHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
8. RAVI
S/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MAGEHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
9. PRASANNA
S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT GENDEHALLY VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
10. SRINIVASA
S/O BHADREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT GENDEHALLY VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
S/O KALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KUDUMANAHALLY VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H V PRAVEEN GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KITTUR VILLAGE, GENDEHALLI POST, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.210/2016 AND THE COMPLAINT DATED 08.09.2016 WHICH WAS PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJ.M., BELURU, HASSAN DISTRICT AND NOW NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.498/2017 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BELUR POLICE STATION, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 11 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 149,143,447,341,323,506,504,114,427 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A,B AND C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 11 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them now pending in C.C.No.498/2017 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 341, 323, 506, 504, 114, 427 read with 149 of IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:30756 CRL.P No. 1409 of 2020
accused Nos.1 and 2 and ten others alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 506,
504, 114, 307, 395 of IPC. It is stated that the accused forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, have illegally trespassed into the land that was purchased by
the complainant from accused No.1 on 08.09.2016 at about 9:40 a.m. They have abused the complainant in
filthy language and with an intention to cause his death, tried to strangulate his neck, and damaged the barbed wire fence and stone pillars. In the meantime, accused No.2 and others have criminally intimidated and instigated accused No.1 to cause the death of the complainant. After causing damages, they have robbed the valuables and thereby committed the offences as stated above. The Investigating Officer, after investigation filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 13 for the above said offences. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings registered against them.
counsel for the petitioners, Smt. N. Anitha Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, and Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.
Vs. Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station,
NC: 2024:KHC:30756 CRL.P No. 1409 of 2020
Dharapuram, Tirupur1 and Chattisgarh High Court in Chhabil Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh2 to contend that mere uttering of words would not attract Section 506 of IPC.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that there
are no specific overt acts alleged against any of the accused except accused Nos.1 and 2. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings against them is liable to be quashed.
No.2 in C.C.No.453/2015 filed a private complaint against
the complainant alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. This complaint was filed on 26.02.2015 and as a counter blast, present complaint was registered. He also submitted that the suit in O.S.No.153/2017 was filed against the complainant for recovery of money and the same came to be decreed
1 AIRONLINE 2021 MAD 2505
2 (2018) 3 CRIMES 171
on 28.03.2023. With all these in mind, the complainant has filed a false complaint against the petitioners. The criminal proceedings is nothing but misuse of the due process of law and therefore, prays for allowing the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:30756 CRL.P No. 1409 of 2020
out prima facie material to constitute the offence. Under such circumstances, it is not a case for quashing and prays for dismissal of the petition.
supporting the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that after due investigation, charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Officer. Under such circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
" Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the ‘negative’ for the following:
REASONS
the respondent - Police making specific allegations. According to him, the accused have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed in the land and damaged the standing crops, barbed wire fence and standing pillars. Accused No.2 tried to strangulate the neck of the complainant while the other accused were intimidating him to cause the death of the complainant.
FIR came to be registered and the investigation was undertaken. The Wound Certificate discloses that the injured was examined by the Medical Officer on the same day of the incident and noticed tenderness over the neck, which was fresh in nature. The spot mahazar drawn on 10.09.2016 discloses that extensive damage is caused to the standing crops, barbed wire fence and stone pillars. The prosecution has cited as many as eight witnesses including the Investigating Officer. It is for the prosecution to prove its contention made against the accused. Suffice
NC: 2024:KHC:30756 CRL.P No. 1409 of 2020
for the Court at this stage to say that there are prima facie materials against the accused to constitute the offences as alleged.
reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in T.M.Ramalingam [ supra ] wherein, the Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC by observing that the complainant has lodged the complaint almost after a decade . It was also observed that mere threat is not sufficient to attract Section 506 of IPC. But in the present case, immediately after the incident, FIR came to be registered. It is not only giving mere threat to the informant, but there was an attempt to strangulate the neck and damage caused to the standing crops, barbed wire fence and stone pillars. It prima facie gets support from the Wound Certificate, first information and also the spot panchanama.
NC: 2024:KHC:30756 CRL.P No. 1409 of 2020
NC: 2024:KHC:30756 CRL.P No. 1409 of 2020
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE
RB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?
Whether mere uttering of words attracts Section 506 of IPC in this case?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T.M.Ramalingam Vs. Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Dharapuram, TirupurDistinguished¶92
T.M.Ramalingam Vs. Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Dharapuram, Tirupur
Chhabil Yadav Vs. State of ChhattisgarhDistinguished¶93
Chhabil Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
SRI M R PRASANNA AND OTHERS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
NAGARAJ I M
M G UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
