Allowed

Baladev Nayak and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2024CRL.P/201141/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused named only in witness statements recorded six months after a stone-pelting incident sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Finding only omnibus allegations and no FIR naming them, the court concluded they were falsely implicated and quashed the sessions proceedings qua them.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C.No.35/2022 arising from Crime No.21/2021 quashed insofar as petitioners/accused Nos.3, 8, 10 to 26 are concerned.

Baladev Nayak and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:523 CRL.P No. 201141 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201141 OF 2023 (482-)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BALADEV NAYAK AND ORS S/O LAXMAN NAYAK AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶11

SHANKAR S/O BHOJU NAIK AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCCUPATION LABOUR

¶12

AKASH S/O SHANKAR CHAUVAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCCUPATION LABOUR

¶13

SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶14

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Date: 2024.01.17 01:00:35 -0800

¶15

DHARMANNA S/O HEMLA RATHOD AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCCUPATION LABOUR

¶16

TARYA S/O DEVYA RATHOD AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶17

HARYA S/O DEVJI NAIK AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE ALL OF RESIDENCE OF ULLESUGUR TANDA,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-K:523 CRL.P No. 201141 of 2023

¶20

TALUK. WADAGERA DISTRICT YADGIRI-585201

¶21

RAVI S/O POMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCCUPATION TILES BUSINESS RESIDENCE OF NALWAR BHOJA NAIK TANDA, TALUK CHITTAPUR DISTRICT KALABURAGI

¶22

RAMESH NAIK S/O RAJU NAIK AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE RESIDENCE OF ULLESUGUR TANDA TALUK WADAGERA DISTRICT YADGIRI 585201

¶23

AYYAPPA S/O MALLAPPA PUJARI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE RESIDENCE OF HORATUR TALUK WADGERA DISTRICT YADGIRI-585201

¶24

MALLAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA LINGERI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE RESIDENCE OF HORATUR TALUK WADGERA DISTRICT YADGIRI-585201

¶25

SHIVABASAPPA

¶26

S/O NAGAPPA PUJARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE RESIDENCE OF HORATUR TALUK WADGERA DISTRICT YADGIRI-585201

¶27

SANNA RAYAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA BADDELI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:523 CRL.P No. 201141 of 2023

¶29

OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶30

DODDA RAYAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA BADDELLI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶31

DEVAPPA S/O TAMANNA KAVALI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶32

LAXAMAN @ LAXMAYYA S/O SIDDAPPA SAGAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶33

KHAJA SAB @ KHAJA S/O YESUB SAB DODDAMANI AGE 36 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶34

SHARANGOUDA S/O MALLANAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶35

LACHAMAYYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶36

HANAMANTRAYA S/O MANAPPA BADIGER AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶37

OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶38

ALL OF RESIDNECE OF ULLESUGUR TALUK WADAGERA DISTRICT YADGIRI 585202

¶39

(BY SRI. PRAKASH YELI, ADVOCATE)

¶40

…PETITIONERS

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:523 CRL.P No. 201141 of 2023

¶42

AND:

¶43

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR THROUGH WADAGERA POLICE STATION DISTRICT YADGIRI REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585103

¶44

RAVI PATIL S/O LATE SANGANAGOUDA MAILPATIL AGE 38 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE RESIDENCE OF HORATUR VILLAGE TALUK WADAGERA DISTRICT YADGIRI-585202

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI.ANITA REDDY, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶47

CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 21/2021 WADIGERE PS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AD SESSIONS JUDGE, AT YADGIRI IN SC NO. 35/2022 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 308, 504, 427, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶48

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

¶49

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:523 CRL.P No. 201141 of 2023

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The police, after investigation, laid the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 308, 504, 427, 506 R/w Section 149 of IPC.

¶52

The learned Magistrate, after accepting the charge sheet, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking exception to the same, accused Nos.3, 8, 10 to 26 are before this Court.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the petitionersaccused Nos.3, 8, 10 to 26, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused accused Nos.3, 8, 10 to 26 submits that, the petitioners herein were not arraigned as the accused in the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 and the charge sheet was laid against these petitioners-accused only on the statements made by CW.1 and others, who have stated that the petitioners herein participated in the criminal act by pelting stones. Hence, he submits that the charge sheet has been laid only on the basis of omnibus and general allegations and in the absence of any material that the petitioners herein have committed any criminal act, the cognizance taken as against these petitioners is impermissible.

¶55

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioners

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:523 CRL.P No. 201141 of 2023

¶57

herein also participated in the crime and pelted stones on the injured witnesses and the veracity of the allegations can be considered at the time of trial and at this stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate as against these petitioners does not warrant any interference.

¶58

Leaned High Court Government Pleader would reiterate the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶59

Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶60

The FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 on 05.02.2021. The police, during the course of investigation, recorded the statement of CW.1 and others on 07.08.2021 i.e., after lapse of six months from the date of the alleged incident. In the said statements, the witnesses have made general allegations that the petitioners-accused herein along with the other accused participated in the crime and pelted stones on the injured witnesses.

¶61

A perusal of the statements of the alleged injured witnesses indicate that except omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific allegation as against these petitioners. Hence, a doubt arises with regard to the involvement of the petitioners in the crime having regard to the fact that the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded after lapse of more than six months from the date of the incident. No explanation is offered by the injured witnesses as to why the

¶62

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:523 CRL.P No. 201141 of 2023

¶63

petitioners herein were not implicated at the time of lodging the FIR and in the absence of a plausible explanation, it is implied that the petitioners herein have been falsely implicated. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶66

ii) The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.35/2022, pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge at Yadgiri, arising out of Crime No.21/2021, registered by the respondentWadigere Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 308, 504, 427, 506 R/w Section 149 of IPC, insofar as it relates to the petitioners- accused Nos.3, 8, 10 to 26 is hereby quashed.

¶67

iii) The learned Sessions Judge to proceed against the other accused without getting influenced by the observations made in this order.

¶68

SSP

¶69

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

Baladev Nayak and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baladev Nayak and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

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

Sri. S.U. Pai-Co-Operative Credit Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative

Srinivas S/O Nookaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Yallappa Ramappa Sonnad Vs the Land Tribunal

M/S Bagamane Developers Private Limited Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Mallikarjun and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Mudukappa S/O Rangappa Marabannavar Vs the Deputy Commissioner