IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF OCTOBER, if"
BEFORE
THE HON'13LE MR. JUSTICE A.E\3.
caxmnm. PETITION"NO.._78o?[,2b'e9 C
BETWEEN:
1.
Sri. Manjunath Shivaram Bhat', :4
Aged about 39 years--,. _
Archak & Agricufrurlst,
R/o.Idagun3:,__ '
Tq: Honnavac g ,
Uttar Kann?ada;:j,~Di,9t,--'- ,58_1 423 '
Sri,~Ra'é*n'an:anda'f:f _
S/o';,Shi_\Iara'm.VBhat,
Aged~_abOut 29'yea'rs,_,
Ar<:hak=._& Agricult'ur'Est,"---._ C
R/0. Idag«LJnj'§,, '_ A
Tq: »HOnnav*a:_"
i_J"uf'3;af__¥<a{mada"D.§_s;t.«~ 581 423
,_"S.r,r. --!\iara3,;fi~zh_a
' _S/0. _Sh_Iv'ar~am. Bhat
' 2 Aged Vab"CU't';3V1 years,
Qcc. Advocate
Rio. H_On°navar
Uttar__f_ada Dést. ---- 581 423
V.Sg_f'.14ti*-zedhar Narayan Pandit,
Aged about 33 years,
V yixgrtcuiturrst,
f\J
R/o.Idagun;i,
Tq: Honnavar
Uttar Kannada Dist. ~ 58: 423 PETITIONERS'
(By Sriyuths: Ganapathi M.Bhat 8:
Suresh S Bhat, Advs)
AND'
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by S.P.P.
High Court Building,
Eharwad.
2. Sr1.Vivei< «
S/o. Mohan Hegde,
Aged about 333 years; . ' v_ A'
R/o.Hoiang.add.e~,. i<u§rhata,',"i"ai«ul'<", ., _ _
Uttar Kan_niavda;5aDi__st_V jf, RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. vPy,_ifi.Got'i<f'i1iif;_di,
(By Sri.:'iV.G;'Bnfa_t, Adv. foi:_R2) .
This "Cri.P-- last"jgjriiiaafuinaer Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to--__ *o__uasi_17th*eg "entire proceedings in C.C.No.
488/2009 JM'FC_ Hon'na\;.ar;"
C~ri.P ?:o'r'ning on for Admission this day, the
Court i11.ad.e.t4%f§'evfoiiowing:
ORDER
“””‘TheV:&se'<iond respondent flied a complaint against the
""'~"Wpxetitioners aiieging commission of offences punishabie
isg1~_.unvde'r'Sections 326, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
i The aiiegation in the compiaint was investigated and
\
./,,
Lu
the chargesheet was filed by the first respondent, against
the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application":.d'a,ted
16.02.2009, by producing an order
Crl.P.No.l798/2008 dated 13.01.2009..andfu'bi,i_,V',re.lVy,i_nVgrubbing 2'
the decision reported in 2008 (6) itiwaig
that, the matter is a civil diisvpute aAn'd.__he_nce: c<og'n'i'zance 0'
need not be taken.
2. The Trial allegations
contained in fact that, the
complaint is who does not
belong aindfiiriotéicoinvnected with the temple
disputeizancii.thatiltilig,;’n’i:.i_:§lent’ has led to the use of filthy
language by'”‘th_e ac£–:used””persons and causing obstruction
“‘~..to t3vi§A:.CQ.mpiainant,”a’is’o resulting in assault on him, which
the wound certificate produced, which
rexi/ealied vtheilgcause of grievous injury, which falls under
,,,..,__,”Section*3i2:.5 of IPC, for which imprisonment of life can be
“irrpos’ed and in view of the fact that the complaint
Vi”..__”V””discioses the severe aliegations, apart from the matter
t
/’3′
,r
being not a civil dispute, the appiication having been found
to be motivated to drag on the proceedings, was rejected.
An order was passed, taking cognizance of
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedinigis _
No.488/2009 on the file of the Prl;;’JJ»AiliIF:’:C’,
3. Learned CounseilV,_fo.r the*- pjetitioineirs”contendW
that, the matter under,__considAe_ra:tio_n’pf th.e”Co._urt_?be|ow, is
a civii dispute and heVn’Ce7 have been
taken by the Trial_.CQL:,,:”t;”:..'[t that there is
abuse of
–_ for the respondent, by taking
me throug–h:_’_4the the chargesheet materials,
contended that, complaint contains allegations, which
iwiare invvastigated and the chargesheet was filed. Hence,
lthehrnatteVr’_vired,,Li’iVres triai and cannot be quashed. Learned
V. Cou”nseiv–..’:.fo”r respondent No.2, made submissions,
dgsupportivng the findings of the Trial Court in the order
,.iii;ssea on 21.07.2009. \
4»:
5. In view of’ the rival contentions, the poi_r~it for
consideration is:
” Whether the complaint relates” M
dispute or the aliegatiognstherein”re_c;.ui’reV’_’trial_t it”
by the Criminal Court ” j; ”
6. The complaint does
prima facie indicate that, halv’e”c’oVmmitted
alleged act punishable impart me. If the
allegation con.ta–ined Vrfor which the
chargesheet in the trial, the Trial
Court ‘e’x’arnine the case for the
offencewvlptiriishapieto-nde.’rg.V.Se’ct.ions 326, 341, 504, 506 read
with Sectionfiievvofl E_PC.,s is not a case where complaint
.–.fidoes’iaoticogntain”‘th.e….ingredients of the criminal offence.
-record do prima facie indicate that, the
co’mxpi’a’inanAt’–“j’j_tééals abused with filthy language, was
‘.obstructe’d.,.in4performing his work, was assaulted, he was
“..grievo.usl5r injured and there was severe threaten to him.
*–§’-E~ie’igce, the matter requires trial by Criminal Court. i-lence,
E».
prima facie, there is no abuse of process or any iliegai
harassment.
In the result, the petition fails
rejected.
However, it is made c’iiea–i:..that,- the _oib.serya~tions or’-‘
findings recorded herein, shotiivd”-inovtujbei.conistrqed as an
expression of opinion The Trial
Court, which hasseizeditiiheifrhatte,r_,fii.s’. to consider
the materia,l§.,t,.§si:’nd_ayV:’:.he:-_tiro_§ogjii.t’ionwsrecord during the
course of__Vtri’a.iha-rid:__sha,i_i’=riecide:the}case, both on facts and
in law, uninfiuenceci by» observations made
herein which are ‘”ii_r_niitedVxto 4V’fi_nd.:_”out whether the case
reqL;i_.rE:S trial or not.
Sd/-
JUDGE