1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO. 6786/2015
BETWEEN
MOHAMMAD IYLAS
S/O GHOUSE BAIG
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE IN PRIVATE SECTOR,
R/AT NO.17(J.P), 6TH CROSS, LIC COLONY, 3RD BLOCK
EAST, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE–11
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.CHANDRAMOULI H S. ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF YESHWANTHPUR P.S.
BENGALURU-560022
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SYAD AISHA SIDDIKA
D/O LATE AMEER AHAMED
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O FLAT NO.5, MUSVEE RESIDENCY
NO.23, HALL ROAD,RICHARDS TOWN,
BENGALURU-560084
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI.RAVI.B.NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.U.G.KATTIMANI., ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH ADDITIONAL CHARGE SHEET FILED BY
YESHWANTPUR POLICE/RESPONDENT No.1 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.307 OF I.P.C. IN CRIME No.382/2013
(IN C.C.No.54898/2014 ON THE FILE OF XI
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU) NOW PENDING IN
S.C.No.457/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the records
2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the
entire proceedings in SC No.457/2015. The records
disclose that earlier, the Police have registered a case in
Crime No.382/2013 for the offence punishable under
sections 498A, 324 and 506 of IPC. The learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance of those offences and
when the matter was pending before the learned
Magistrate, it appears, the Police have submitted
additional charge sheet u/s.173(8) of Cr.P.C.
incorporating the offence u/s.307 of IPC. The learned
Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence
3
u/s.307 of Cr.P.C. complying the provisions of Section
207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of
Sessions, as the offence is exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions and registered a case in SC
No.457/2015.
3. Sri H.S. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the
petitioner strenuously argued that even though there
are no sufficient materials to attract Section 307 of IPC,
the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and
referred the matter to the Court of Sessions by way of
committal.
4. As could be seen from the entire charge sheet,
there are many number of statement of the witnesses
available including various statements of the
complainant. In my opinion, the statements of the
witnesses have to be looked into and weighed by the
Sessions Court, in order to ascertain whether there are
any materials which attract Sec.307 of IPC to proceed
with the case. That exercise can only be done by the
Sessions Court at the time of passing the order with
regard to framing of charges.
4
5. Under the above said circumstances, the
petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty
to move the Sessions Court for their discharge for the
above said offences by making necessary application.
If any such application is filed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge is
directed to provide opportunity to both the parties and
then dispose of the said application in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*