Siddramappa S/O Jayappa Desai vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7372 Kant

                                                 -1-




                                                        CRL.P No. 100947 of 2019


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                         DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                                               BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100947 OF 2019 (482)

                      BETWEEN:
                            SIDDRAMAPPA S/O JAYAPPA DESAI,
                            AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                            R/O: MUDHOL, TQ: YELBURGA,
                            DIST: KOPPAL, P.C. NO: 583232.

                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI P.G.MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
                      AND:
                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            THROUGH ITS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                            YELBURGA POLICE STATION, YELBURGA,
                            TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL,
                            BY ITS ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                            HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                            DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
                            TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.

                      2.    BASAPPA S/O THIPPANNA SAJJAN,
CHANDRASHEKAR               AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI                   R/O: MUDHOL, TQ: YELBURGA,
                            DIST: KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583232.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI             (BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1)
                           THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
                      CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
                      13.10.2017 IN C.C.NO.266/2016 REGISTERED FOR THE
                              -2-




                                   CRL.P No. 100947 of 2019


OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 326, 355,
504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, INSOFAR AS IT
RELATES TO THE PETITIONER, PASSED BY THE CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC COURT, YELBURGA.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel Sri P.G.Mogali appearing for

petitioner and learned High Court Government pleader for

State.

2. The present criminal petition is filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the

following prayers:

"Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside the order dated 13.10.2017 in C.C.No.266/2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 355, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code insofar as it relates to petitioner, passed by the leanred Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

CRL.P No. 100947 of 2019

Upon the charge sheet filed by the Yelburga Police

Station, a case came to be registered in C.C.No.266/2016

for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 355,

504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

4. The main thrust of the argument of learned

counsel for the petitioner to support the petition prayer is

that, the petitioner is not the FIR named accused nor his

name finds in the charge sheet and despite the same, he

has been summoned before the jurisdictional magistrate

whereby he is put to untold hardship besides being

exposed to the criminal action.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that, he is

not accused No.1 as is found in the charge sheet if that be

so he may as well appear before the jurisdictional

magistrate and to file proof that accused No.1 is altogether

a different person than the petitioner.

CRL.P No. 100947 of 2019

6. Upon such proof being produced before the

jurisdictional magistrate, the magistrate would himself

exonerate the petitioner from further action.

7. With the above observation, the petition stands

disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

EM