Criminal Petition No. 2638 of 2012 · Karnataka High Court

MR. MAHADEVA AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE GIRIMALLAIAH INSPECTOR OF POLICE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE WORKING AT THYAGARAJANAGARA POLICE STATION BANGALORE – 560 028. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI: KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR M/S: ALAWMENS CHAMBER) 2 AND:

MR BALAKRISHNA S/O BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.249 7TH 'A' CROSS 3RD FLOOR, SHASTHRINAGARA BANGALORE – 560 028.

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE COMMISSIONER REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, RESPONDENT NO.2 IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.5.2012, SRI: P KARUNAKAR, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.5321/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ACMM, BANGALORE, AND PASS SUCH NECESSARY ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Kemparaju, for the petitioners and the learned counsel, Sri. Amar Correa, for respondent No.1 and Sri.P.Karunakar, learned HCGP for the State in respect of the 3 petitioners’ prayer for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.5321/2012 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Court below directing the case being registered against them in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506-II read with Section 34 of the IPC and issuing summons to them, pursuant to a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 herein.

Submission of petitioners’ counsel is that the Court below in the course of its order has also recorded certain findings against the petitioners and more over, the Wound Certificate produced by the complainant on 14.1.2012 does not indicate any injuries but the subsequent Wound Certificate which was produced on 16.1.2012 shows certain injuries being suffered by the 4 complainant. Therefore, the order of the Court below be set aside.

Having thus heard the petitioners' counsel and also the respondent's counsel and after going through the order of the trial Court, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge has taken into consideration the entire material placed before him including the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses and has held that prima-facie allegations are made in the complaint which require to be gone into and therefore, the order was passed registering the case against the petitioners and ordered issuance of summons.

This Court does not deem it proper to interfere at this juncture when the allegations in the complaint have been held to be prima-facie sufficient to proceed against the petitioners and all the contentions put forward by the petitioners in this petition can be urged before the trial Court. 5

The apprehension raised by the petitioners' counsel with regard to the appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is concerned, it is the duty of the agency which is in control of the law and order to ensure that no untoward incident takes place and the trial Court shall also take necessary steps in this regard.

Petition is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.1/2012 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE KM