Siddaramegowda vs State By Km Doddi Police Station
2023 Latest Caselaw 2182 Kant

                                                  -1-
                                                          CRL.P No. 10524 of 2022




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                                 BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
                                 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10524 OF 2022
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SIDDARAMEGOWDA
                           S/O MINAKEGOWDA
                           AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                           OCCU -AGRICULRIST/FARMER

                      2.   THAYAMMA @ LINGARNMA
                           W/O SIDDARARNEGOWDA
                           AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                           OCC-HOUSE WIFE

                      3.   HANUMEGOWDA @ DODDAIDEGOWDA
                           S/O LATE MINAKEGOWDA
                           AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
                           OCC- AGRICLUTIRIST /FARMER

                      4.   SAVITHRAMMA
Digitally signed by
                           W/O HANUMEGOWDA
BHAVANI BAI G
Location: High             AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
Court of Karnataka
                           OCC-HOUSE WIFE

                      5.   RAMESHA @ CHIKKAHANUMEGOWDA B M
                           S/O LATE MINAKEGOWDA
                           AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                           OCC- AGRICULTURIST /FARMER

                      6.   LATHA
                           W/O CHIKKAHANUMEGOWDA
                           AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
                           OCC- HOUSE WIFE
                              -2-
                                    CRL.P No. 10524 of 2022




     ALL ARE R/AT BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE
     C A KERE HOBLI MADDURU TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT -571422
                                              ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BASAVAIAH C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE BY KM DODDI POLICE STATION
     MALAVALLI SUB DIVISION
     K M DODDI MADDURU TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422

     REP. BY SPP
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU

2.   B S KRISHNEGOWDA
     S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
     OCC- AGRICULTURIST/FARMER
     BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE
     C A KERE HOBLI MADDURU TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT -571 422
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI. ARAVIND M. NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR NO.81/2022 IN
CR.NO.27/2022 DATED 30.01.2022 AND AGAINST WHICH CHARGE
SHEET NO.145/2022 ON 02.06.2022 IN C.C.NO.2090/2022 AS PER
ANNEXURE-B AND C ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, MADDURU SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE
AUTHORITY AGAINST THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE FALSE ALLEGED
COMPLAINT OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 341,
323, 324, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -3-
                                         CRL.P No. 10524 of 2022




                               ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal

proceedings in C.C.No.2090/2022 in Crime No.27/2022

registered by the K.M.Doddi Police Station, Mandya District

charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 143, 341, 323,

324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent No.1 - State and learned counsel for the respondent

No.2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2

filed a complaint to the Police on 30.01.2022 alleging that on

19.01.2022 when the son of the complainant was going in the

bullock cart, the complainant was also going behind the cart, at

that time, while crossing near the house of accused No.1,

accused No.1 and their family members came out of the house,

picked up quarrel, assaulted the son of the complainant and

caused injuries. Thereafter, the complainant approached the

elders of the village, for the same, the elders have informed

CRL.P No. 10524 of 2022

that they will compromise the case, but they have not chosen

to do so. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed. After

registering the case, the Police investigated the matter and

filed the charge-sheet which is under challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended

that the respondent-complainant, his son and others were

assaulted petitioner No.1, hence, a complaint has been filed

which was registered as a Crime No.19/2022 on 19.01.2022

itself and as the counter blast, a false complaint has been filed

after eleven days of the complaint filed by the petitioners.

There is no injury, a false certificate has been obtained by the

respondent. Therefore, prayed for quashing the criminal

proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

submits that there was a case and counter case between the

parties, charge-sheet has been filed by the Police against the

both the parties. Merely, there is a delay and that itself is not a

ground to quash the criminal proceedings as some of the elders

have informed him that they would compromise the case, but

they have not done so, therefore, there is a delay in filing the

CRL.P No. 10524 of 2022

complaint, that can be looked into only in the trial. Hence,

prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader also

submits that the case is required for trial.

7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the

records, which reveals, of course, petitioner No.1 has filed a

complaint against respondent No.2 and others on 19.01.2022

which was registered in Crime No.19/2022 for the offences

punishable under Sections 447, 504, 323, 324, 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC. The Police have also filed charge-sheet

against respondent No.2 and his son. Likewise, the respondent

No.2 also filed a complaint against this petitioner and his family

members which was registered in Crime No.27/2022 for the

alleged offence took place on 19.01.2022. The complaint came

to be filed on 30.01.2022. Of course there is 11 days delay in

filing the complaint. Respondent No.2 has explained the delay

in the complaint saying that the elders of the village have told

that they would compromise the case, therefore, he did not

chosen to file the complaint immediately. Whether the delay in

lodging the complaint is fatal or not has to be looked into by

CRL.P No. 10524 of 2022

the trial Court only after recording the evidence of the parties.

When case and counter case registered against both the

parties, the incident is admitted one, therefore, one case

cannot be quashed by the Court and both the case should be

tried by the same Judge and the judgment should be delivered

by the same Judge and on the same day by giving finding that

who is the aggressor of the incident. Such being the case, the

petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

9. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending

I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and the same

is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GBB