Allowed¶51

Nagaraja S/O Nagajja v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2025CRL.P/100292/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal case under Section 482 CrPC — CRL.P No.100292 of 2022 (NC: 2025:KHC-D:74), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Hemant Chandangoudar J., 06-01-2025 — C.C. No.361/2021, Civil Judge & JMFC Sandur, Crime No.75/2021 Gudikote Police — IPC Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 354(B), 504, 506 r/w 149 — general and omnibus allegations — abuse of process of law — parthenium plants dumping quarrel — wound certificate doubtful, doctor not examined — respondent No.2 de facto complainant ex parte — petition allowed, proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.361/2021 pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Sandur quashed. ¶51

Nagaraja S/O Nagajja Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.361/2021 pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Sandur quashed.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the statements of the chargesheet witnesses, containing general and omnibus allegations without specific attribution of any assault to each accused, can sustain the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

A perusal of the statements of the chargesheet witnesses reveals general and omnibus allegations without specific details as to how and in what manner each accused assaulted the injured witnesses.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Only C.W.1's simple injuries are attributed to accused No.1; no material substantiates that the other injured persons sustained injuries caused by the other accused, and the doctor who examined C.W.1 has not been examined, casting doubt on the authenticity of the wound certificate produced with the chargesheet.

¶42

Key takeaways

The incident appears to be trivial in nature, arising out of a spur-of-the-moment quarrel concerning the removal and dumping of parthenium plants.ratio¶43
The dispute over removal and dumping of parthenium plants has been unnecessarily given a criminal dimension to implicate the accused.ratio¶46
In light of the above, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No.100292 of 2022 (High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; Hemant Chandangoudar, J.) filed under Section 482 CrPC allowed; criminal proceedings in C.C. No.361/2021 pending before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Sandur — arising out of Crime No.75/2021 of Gudikote Police for offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 354(B), 504, 506 read with Section 149 IPC — quashed. The statements of the chargesheet witnesses contained only general and omnibus allegations without specifics as to how each accused assaulted the injured witnesses; only C.W.1's simple injuries were attributed to accused No.1, and as the doctor who examined C.W.1 was not examined, the authenticity of the wound certificate was doubtful. The incident was a trivial, spur-of-the-moment quarrel over removal and dumping of parthenium plants, unnecessarily given a criminal dimension to implicate the accused; continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Respondent No.2 (de facto complainant) was placed ex parte.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:74 CRL.P No. 100292 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100292 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAGARAJA S/O NAGAJJA AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, TIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE, SANDURU, BALLARI-583 128.

¶8

SAVITA S/O. LATE KARIBASAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, TIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE, SANDURU, BALLARI-583 128.

¶9

NAGAJJA S/O. SHARANAPPA AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, TIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE, SANDURU, BALLARI-583 128.

¶10

BASANNA S/O. SUBBANNA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, TIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE, SANDURU, BALLARI-583 128.

¶11

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI ASHPAK Location: HIGH KASHIMSA COURT OF MALAGALADINNI KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.09 12:51:07 +0530

¶12

RAVI S/O. BASAPPA AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, TIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE, SANDURU, BALLARI-583 128.

¶13

BHARAMAKKA W/O. YARRIYAPPA, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, TIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE, SANDURU, BALLARI-583 128.

¶14

GIRIJAMMA S/O. BASANNA, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, TIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE, SANDURU, BALLARI-583 128.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:74 CRL.P No. 100292 of 2022

¶17

KUBERA S/O. NANJAPPA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, TIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE, SANDURU, BALLARI-583 128.

¶18

SUNITA W/O. KUBERA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, TIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE SANDURU, BALLARI-583 128.

¶19

… PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. HANUMESH M. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY GUDEKOTE P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD.

¶23

SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O. KUBERAPPA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE, SANDURU, BALLARI-583 128.

¶24

… RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1)

¶26

(R2-SERVED)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 13.09.2021 IN C.C. NO.361/2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SANDUR THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 323, 324, 354(B), 504, 506, 143, 147, R/W 149 OF IPC, IN CRIME NO.75/2021 OF GUDIKOTE POLICE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:74 CRL.P No. 100292 of 2022

¶30

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 504, 506, and 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, are before this Court seeking relief.

¶34

The case of the prosecution is that on 04.07.2021, at about 12:30 p.m., when C.W.4 and C.W.5 were removing parthenium plants from their agricultural land, accused No. 2, who owns the adjoining land, allegedly abused C.W.5 in filthy language, questioning why they were dumping the parthenium plants on her land. Accused No. 2 is also alleged to have threatened C.W.5’s life. When C.W.1 and C.W.4 intervened to question accused No. 2’s conduct, she is said to have assaulted C.W.1 with her hand and pulled her hair.

¶35

Later, on the same day, at about 3:00 p.m., accused Nos. 1 to 9, allegedly forming an unlawful assembly, came near C.W.1’s house, abused the chargesheet witnesses in filthy language, and engaged in violent acts. Accused No. 1 is alleged to have assaulted C.W.1 on the left ear, causing bleeding injuries. Accused Nos. 3 to 5 allegedly assaulted C.W.4 with their hands. Accused No. 8 is alleged to have pulled C.W.1’s hair, and accused No. 1 allegedly pulled C.W.1’s saree, outraging her modesty.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:74 CRL.P No. 100292 of 2022

¶38

The learned Magistrate, after accepting the final report, took cognizance of the aforementioned offences. Taking exception to this, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for respondent No. 1/State.

¶40

Respondent No. 2 (the de facto complainant), despite being served with notice, has neither appeared in person nor through counsel. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 is placed ex parte.

¶41

The dispute between the parties stems from the removal of parthenium plants and their alleged dumping on the land belonging to the accused. A perusal of the statements of the chargesheet witnesses reveals general and omnibus allegations without specific details as to how and in what manner each accused assaulted the injured witnesses.

¶42

The wound certificate indicates that C.W.1 sustained simple injuries allegedly inflicted by accused No. 1. However, no material is presented to substantiate that the other injured persons sustained injuries caused by the other accused. Furthermore, although the wound certificate is produced along with the chargesheet to show that C.W.1 suffered simple injuries, the doctor’s statement who examined C.W.1 has not been recorded, casting doubt on the authenticity of the wound certificate.

¶43