Nagesh vs Smt Vanajakshi on 21 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA

CRL.P. NO. 4909/2017
BETWEEN

1. NAGESH,
S/O LATE THIRUMALAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS A POLICE CONSTABLE,
TIGER BLOCK, H D KOTE TOWN,
H D KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DIST.

2. GIRIGOWDA,
S/O LATE THIRUMALAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS A AGRICULTURIST
R/AT NO.1667, HOUSING BOARD COLONY
H D KOTE TOWN, MYSURU DIST.

3. PRAKASH,
S/O LATE THIRUMALAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS A AGRICULTURIST
R/AT NO.1667, HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
H D KOTE TOWN, MYSURU DIST.

4. RAJU,
S/O ALTE THIRUMALAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT NO.1667, HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
H D KOTE TOWN, MYSURU DIST.

5. GEETHA,
W/O GIRIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2

WORKING AS A AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT NO.1667, HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
H D KOTE TOWN, MYSURU DIST,
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADV.)

AND

1. SMT. VANAJAKSHI,
W/O NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
H D KOTE TOWN,
MYSURU DISTRICT.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
H D KOTE POLICE STATION,
H D KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DIST.
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BENGALURU … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.206/2015 AND
PROCEEDINGS IN RELATING TO THE C.C.NO.312/2017
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.
DN.) AND J.M.F.C., H.D.KOTE, MYSURU FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 143, 498A, 504, 324, 323, 506, 114,
149 OF IPC 1860, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT
NO.1 AND ALLOW THIS CRL.P.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG
WITH IA NO.1/2017 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Perused the records.

2. I do not want to express anything on merits or

demerits of the case, since on perusal of the charge sheet

averments, it is found that certain allegations made

against the petitioners, which constitute offences

punishable under the penal provisions.

3. In the above said circumstances, it is just and

necessary to permit the petitioners to approach the trial

Court by filing application for their discharge. If such an

application is filed, the court can weigh the materials on

record to come to a conclusion that whether the materials

on record are sufficient to proceed against the

petitioners/accused while framing of charges. With such

liberty, the petition is liable to be disposed of.

4. Accordingly, liberty is given to the petitioners

to file appropriate application before the trial Court for

their discharge. If such application is filed, the trial Court
4

shall afford opportunity to the parties on both sides and

dispose of the same in accordance with law.

In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA

No.1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for

consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands

disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *