Sridevi vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 6800 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC-K:7713
                                                     CRL.P No. 200698 of 2023




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                        DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                        CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200698 OF 2023 (482)
                   BETWEEN:

                         SRIDEVI
                         D/O. SHANKAR RAO,
                         AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS,
                         OCC: NURSING AT BRIMS HOSPITAL BIDAR,
                         R/O. VILLAGE NAGUR(M),
                         TQ. AURAD-B,
                         DIST. BIDAR
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. MANURE ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
Digitally signed
by SHILPA R        1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
TENIHALLI
                         SANTHPUR P.S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 TQ. AURADD-B,
KARNATAKA                DIST. BIDAR,
                         RPTD. BY
                         ADDL. SPP HC KLB-585103.

                   2.    REKHA W/O. HANMANTH,
                         AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS,
                         OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                         R/O. NAGUR- M,
                         TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. J. SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
                       R2 REKHA SERVED)
                             -2-
                                  NC: 2023:KHC-K:7713
                                  CRL.P No. 200698 of 2023




     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
ALLOWED AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.
566/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. JMFC JR. DIVISION AT
AURAD OF POLICE SANTHPUR IN CRIME NO. 23/2021 OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504
R/W 149 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1 - State. Respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant is

present.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire

proceedings in C.C.No.566/2021, pending on the file of the

learned Principal JMFC, Junior Division, Aurad, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

323, 324, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The

NC: 2023:KHC-K:7713 CRL.P No. 200698 of 2023

petitioner is accused No.2, respondent No.1 is the State

and respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on

22.03.2021, at about 11.00 a.m., a quarrel took place

between accused No.4 and respondent No.2 in respect of

return of Rs.60,000/- by respondent No.2, hence, all the

accused persons took quarrel with respondent No.2,

accused No.2 (petitioner) assaulted respondent No.2 on

her head with a stone and caused bleedings injuries,

accused No.3 also assaulted on her back, accused No.1

tuft her hairs and accused No.5 voluntarily caused hurt on

the chest of respondent No.2, hence, the complainant

lodged a complaint against the accused persons for the

aforesaid offences. Taking exception of the same, the

petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused

No.2 contended that, at the time of commission of alleged

offence, the petitioner was not present at the spot and she

NC: 2023:KHC-K:7713 CRL.P No. 200698 of 2023

was working in Government Hospital, Bidar. Hence, he

prayed to allow the petition.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 - State submits that, the petitioner has

actively participated in the alleged offences and hence, the

petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. On perusal of the material available on record,

it appears that, this petitioner/accused No.2 has

voluntarily caused hurt on the head of respondent No.2

with stone and caused bleedings injuries. As per the

wound certificate, the Medical Officer has opined that,

respondent No.2 has sustained head injury and such injury

would be caused by stone. At this juncture, there is prima

facie case is made out against the petitioner. The

Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the

present petitioner and others and the Trial Court has

framed charges and now the matter is set down for

evidence.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:7713 CRL.P No. 200698 of 2023

8. If charges are framed in accordance with

Section 240 of Cr.P.C. on a finding that, prima facie case

has been made out, as has been done in the instant case.

A person arraigned as accused may if she/he feels

aggrieved, can invoke revisional jurisdiction of the High

Court or the Sessions Court to contend that, the charge

sheet submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and

documents sent with it do not disclose any ground to

presume that he/she had committed an offence for which

he/she has been charge sheeted and the revisional Court if

so satisfied, can quash the charges framed against

him/her. Whereas, in the instant case, there is prima facie

material that, the petitioner/accused No.2 alone has

voluntarily caused hurt with stone on the head of

respondent No.2 and thus, caused bleedings injuries,

which is a cognizable offence.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Manakshi Bala vs. Sudhir Kumar reported in (1994) 4

SCC 142, has held that, once the Trial Court has framed

NC: 2023:KHC-K:7713 CRL.P No. 200698 of 2023

charges, the High Court should be slow in exercising

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that, at the time of commission of alleged offence, the

petitioner/accused No.2 was not present at the spot and

she was working in nursing home and to substantiate the

said aspect, he has furnished the attendance list

maintained by the hospital, thus, he pleaded plea of alibi.

Admittedly, the question of raising plea of alibi would be a

material of trial and at the stage of Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

or Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot consider such

aspect.

11. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has

disputed the presence of the petitioner/accused No.2 at

the spot on the date of the alleged incident. The disputed

question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this

Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and at this stage, only

prima facie case has to be seen. This ratio is laid in the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:7713 CRL.P No. 200698 of 2023

Neeharika Infrastructure Prt. Ltd., Versus State of

Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2021 SC

1918.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the

present case and the decisions cited supra and also the

fact that, present petitioner is involved in the alleged

offences, the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2

is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

However, any observations made in this petition does

not come in the way of the Trial Court while disposing off

the main matter on its merit.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SRT