Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahammed Musthak vs State By Karkala Town P S on 29 July, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29896
WP No. 19051 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 19051 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHAMMED MUSTHAK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL AJIJ,
R/O IFA 3-472(7A), JINATH MANZIL,
DEKKADU SUBHASH NAGARA,
MUNNURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT - 572 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY KARKALA TOWN P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT BUILDING,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. K. MUSTHAFA HASANABBA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE HASANABBA,
R/O MOTHER CARE HOUSE,
BAILOOR POST, KOUDUR VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK - 572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29896
WP No. 19051 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 234/2023 19.11.2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KARKALA, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 504, 506
AND 511 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A). IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER
CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel, Shri K.Prasanna Shetty, appearing for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.234 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 and 511 of IPC.
3. The learned High Court Government Pleader, on instructions would submit that the charges have already -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29896 WP No. 19051 of 2024 been framed by the concerned Court and the matter is set at the stage of evidence.
4. If the charges are framed and the matter is set at the stage of evidence, this Court would not entertain the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to put the clock back to the stage of registration of the FIR. Further, any interference now would run foul of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Minakshi Bala Vs. Sudhir Kumar reported in (1994) 4 SCC 142. The petition is thus disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to urge all the contentions before the concerned Court at the appropriate time.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 187