Dismissed

Muninanjappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024CRL.RP/798/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenged a Sessions Court order discharging certain accused in an unlawful assembly and attempted murder case. The trial court had acquitted the remaining co-accused facing similar allegations. The High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the discharge order and dismissed the revision petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Muninanjappa Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:13225 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 798 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MUNINANJAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27, IST CROSS, CHALLAGHATTA, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A.H. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY AIRPORT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

P. RAMAIAH, S/O LATE PATALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.107, CHALLAGATTA, YAMALUR POST, NEAR SRI RAMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶15

JAYARAM, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13225 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2016

¶17

ARUN, S/O CHELUVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.47, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶18

MUNIRAJU, S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.610, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶19

MADHU, S/O RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶20

NAGARAJU, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.124, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶21

KRISHNAPPA, S/O CHICKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.1921, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶22

V.. MANJUNATHA, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:13225 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2016

¶25

M. MANJUNATHA, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶26

MOHAN, S/O G. MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.98, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶27

MR. APPU, S/O P. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO.107, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, NEAR SRI RAMA TEMPLE, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R12)

¶30

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE CITY IN S.C.NO.1064/2012 DISCHARGING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.1,2,6 TO 12,14 AND 15 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE TO FRAME THE CHARGES FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES, AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 13.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:13225 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2016

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The order dated 11.08.2015 passed by the learned LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in S.C. No.1064/2012, discharging accused Nos. 1, 2, 6 to 12, 14, and 15 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., is challenged in this petition.

¶36

The case of the prosecution is that, on 09.03.2012, at property bearing No. 444/06, under the jurisdiction of BBMP, Marathahalli Range, accused No. 1, along with accused Nos. 2 to 15, allegedly armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly with the common objective of committing an offence. They criminally trespassed into the said property, which is claimed by CW.1 and his family members, who had obtained an order of status quo in O.S. No. 1031/2011. In furtherance of their common intention, all the accused allegedly attempted to lay concrete on the property, which was objected to by CW.9 and CW.10. Subsequently, all the accused pushed CW.9 and CW.10 from the property and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. The accused also allegedly caught hold of CW.1 to CW.5 and assaulted them. Accused Nos. 3 to 5 and 13 allegedly inflicted injuries on CW.2 (Venkatesha Reddy) with clubs, and all the accused allegedly attempted to murder CW.2.

¶37

After the discharge of the petitioners/accused, the learned Sessions Judge conducted the trial concerning accused Nos. 3 to 5 and 13. Upon appreciating the evidence on record, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13225 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2016

¶39

Nos. 3 to 5 and 13 beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted them of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 447 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶40

The allegations against accused Nos. 3 to 5 and 13 are similar to those made against the respondents herein.

¶41

The Trial Court discharged the respondents, stating that the mere presence of accused Nos. 1, 2, 6 to 12, and 14 at the time of the incident does not automatically establish that they were members of an unlawful assembly, especially when there was no material to substantiate that they shared a common object as defined under Section 141 of the IPC. There is no specific overt act alleged against the respondents to demonstrate how or in what manner each of them assaulted or threatened anyone. The allegation of attempting to murder is specifically against accused Nos. 3 to 5 and 13, and there is no specific allegation that the respondents herein attempted to murder CW.2. The Trial Court further noted that the question of whether the subject property belongs to CW.1 or the temple is a matter to be adjudicated by the jurisdictional City Civil Court in pending O.S. No.1031/2012.

¶42

After considering the material on record, the Trial Court rightly concluded that there was no prima facie case to proceed against the respondents and passed the impugned order discharging them of the offences alleged.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:13225 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2016

¶45

I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶46

Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.

¶47

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶48

PNV

Muninanjappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Muninanjappa v. 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

Smt. C. Anjali Vs the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Coromandel Sugars Limited Vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission

Doddathippeswamy Vs Asst Executiven Engineer

Smt.G. Veena Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Mahammad Rashid Vs the State of Karnataka

H Raviprakash Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka