Karnataka High Court
Md.Imran S/O Md.Rafeeq Khan vs The State on 6 December, 2021
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201437/2019
BETWEEN:
MD. IMRAN S/O MD. RAFEEQ KHAN
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O BARAHILLS, NEAR KARIMSAB HOUSE
KALABURAGI-585103
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI USTAD SAADATH HUSSAIN &
SRI USTAD ZAKIR HUSSAIN, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
M.B.NAGAR POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI (REPRESENTING BY
LEARNED ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT KALABURAGI-585105)
2. KHURSID SETH
S/O ABDUL RASHEED SETH
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC
R/O 4/601/60D/2, M.B.NAGAR
KALABURAGI-585105
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP R1;
R2-SERVED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGES INITIATED AGAINST
PETITIONER ARISING FROM M.B.NAGAR POLICE STATION, IN
CRIME NO.98/2012 AND C.C.NO.1734/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 379 AND 511 OF IPC, PENDING
BEFORE IV-ADDITIONAL JMFC COURT, KALABURAGI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2
though served is unrepresented.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., by accused No.3 praying this Court to quash the
entire proceedings and charges initiated against petitioner
arising from M.B.Nagar Police Station, in Crime
No.98/2012 and C.C.No.1734/2019 for the offences
punishable under Sections 379 and 511 of IPC, pending
before IV-Additional JMFC Court, Kalaburagi.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner
has been arrayed as accused No.3 and other accused i.e.,
accused Nos.1 and 2. The allegation has been made that
the complainant's elder brother parked the car besides the
house in open site and next day, the culprits have broken
backside glass of the car and tried to steal the tape-
recorder. Hence, case has been registered. The police
have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet
against the accused.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that accused Nos.1 and 2 have
already been acquitted by the trial Court and the petitioner
also stands on the same footing. The witnesses who have
been examined before the trial Court have denied filing of
complaint and they have not supported the case of the
prosecution. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for relief of
quashing of charge sheet. The learned counsel in support
of his arguments has relied upon the evidence led before
the Court. The learned counsel contends that none of the
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. This
Court vide order dated 16.02.2021 allowed the Criminal
Petition No.200291/2021 wherein observation is made that
the prosecution in order to establish the charge leveled
against the accused persons who were tried before the
Trial Court in S.C.No.203/2015 had in all examined eight
witnesses. All the material witnesses have completely
turned hostile. Therefore, examination of the official
witnesses was dispensed with by the Trial Court and
ultimately acquitted the accused and hence, this Court
held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of quashing.
The learned counsel also relied upon the order
passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.9131/2009
wherein this Court has exercised power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also relied upon the other
decisions wherein the Court has invoked Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.,
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that
the judgments which have been relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner are old judgments. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Umesh vs. State of Kerala
reported in (2017)3 SCC 112 held that it is for the
Magistrate to consider the contentions and the High Court
rightly refused to quash the criminal proceedings. Hence,
the petitioner can approach the very Court and make
necessary application.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and on
perusal of the order sheet it discloses that the petitioner
was appearing before the trial Court when the evidence of
the petitioner was led in. He did not appear before the
Court trial Court only when the case was posted for
recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Then the
Court issued NBW against the petitioner and notice on
surety. On 28.02.2019 split up case was registered and
further proceeded for recording statement of other accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and acquitted accused Nos.1
and 2. Having taken factual aspects of the case and also
stage in which the accused was absconded and all other
procedure were followed issuing NBW and notice against
the surety and thereafter split up case was registered
against accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused Nos.1 and 2 are
acquitted, the very contention that accused Nos.1 and 2
are acquitted and hence, he is also entitled for the same
benefit cannot be accepted. The said benefit cannot be
considered under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Umesh's case referred to supra held that the
accused can approach the learned Magistrate by filing
necessary application to seek for discharge. In the case on
hand, evidence has already been led when he was
appearing before the Court and what remains is only
consideration of evidence by the trial Court and hence, no
question of discharge also arises. The matter requires
appreciation of evidence which has already been led and
hence, there are no grounds to exercise power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
