Karnataka v. (BY SRI R. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1)

(BY SRI N. SURESHA, ADV.) AND:

STATE BY KARNATAKA BY BILIGERE POLICE STATION NANJANGUDU TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 301 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLICPROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING.

PRADEEP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE H.S MAHADEVAPPA HORALAVADI VILLAGE NO.34, ANIKETHANA ROAD 3 ADDA RASTE, KUVEMPUT NAGAR Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13740 CRL.P No. 2436 of 2024 NANJANGUDU TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 301. (BY SRI R. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 04.01.2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT THE NO.1 PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 341, 342, 504, 506, 114 R/W 34 OF IPC AT ANNEXURE-G. CR.NO.0005/2023 AGAINST FILED THE IN THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.7/2024 pending before the Court of Additional (Jr. Dn.) Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjanagudu, Mysuru District, arising out of Crime No.5/2023 registered by Biligere Police Station, Mysuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 323, 324, 506, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that allegations found in the first information and the charge sheet do not prima facie - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13740 CRL.P No. 2436 of 2024 attract the alleged offences against the petitioners. Police without properly investigating the case have filed a charge sheet against petitioners for extraneous reasons. He submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties. The place of incident mentioned in the spot mahazar does not tally with the property bearing Sy.No.329. The names of alleged eye witnesses was not mentioned in the first information and they have been falsely implanted subsequently.

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that police after investigation have filed charge sheet against accused persons. The material on record would go to show that the victim has suffered injuries in the incident in question. Medical records would go to show that he was treated in Hospital for the injuries suffered by him in the incident in question. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

FIR in Crime No.5/2023 was registered by Biligere Police Station, Mysuru, against petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences on the basis of the first information received from Pradeepakumar H. M. S/o late H S Mahadevappa on

03.01.2023. Police after investigation have filed charge sheet - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13740 CRL.P No. 2436 of 2024 for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons. First informant is the victim in the present case, who has suffered injuries in the incident in question. The material on record would go to show that he had taken treatment for the injuries suffered by him in a Government Hospital and thereafter, approached the police. CW2 is the eye witness to the alleged incident in question. CW5 is the Doctor who has treated CW1 - first informant and also has issued the Wound Certificate. Police during the course of investigation have held spot mahazar of the place of incident. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no material against the petitioners to be prosecuted for the alleged offences. It also cannot be said that the allegations made in the first information and in the charge sheet filed against the petitioners lack necessary ingredients so as to attract the alleged offences against them. Merely for the reason that there is a civil dispute between the parties, that itself cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings if it is otherwise found that the accused have indulged in a criminal act in the background of civil dispute between them.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha vs. Rameshwari Devi & Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13740 CRL.P No. 2436 of 2024 369, has held that it is well settled that criminal and civil proceedings are separate and independent and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if they arise out of the same set of facts.

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case wherein inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised by this Court, for quashing impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the petition dismissed. DN Sd/- JUDGE