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*