1. Petitioners have sought for quashing of proceedings in S.C.No.140/2005 pending on the file of I Addl. Sessions Judge at Bijapur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 336, 333, 332, 504, 506(2) read with Section 149 of IPC and further read with Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction of Loss of Property Act, 1981.

2. Bijapur Rural Public registered a case in Crime No.257/2002 on 21.12.2002 for the above said offences, interalia alleging that, the incident has taken place between 2.15 to 2.45 p.m. on 21.12.2002. It is alleged that, the police was on bandobast duty in connection with the election of President and Vice President of Madabhavi Grama Panchayath. For the said election, Jainabi w/o Razacksab Madabhavi and Lakshmi Bai w/o Pulesha Bandivaddara were likely candidates to be elected as President and Vice President. One Ningappa Parasappa Puraji had also submitted his nomination, date was fixed for scrutiny of the nomination. The said Ningappa Pujari had no majority support in this regard. Accused wanted to disturb the election process. The accused came in 2 jeeps and 7 to 8 motor bikes and about 10 to 12 persons had armed with stone, club and picked up a quarrel with the election officer, destroy the nomination papers and other election material. They assaulted the former President and also threw stones at the police and caused grievous injuries. Police apprehending that the situation may aggravate, police informed the high authorities for additional security. It is alleged that, the accused had come in support of Ningappa Pujari, who was the candidate contesting for Vice President Post and knowing that the said Ningappa had no major support, intentionally forming unlawful assembly to disturb the election, they assaulted and disturbed the election process and caused injuries also. In view of this incident, the police registered the case and on investigation has filed the charge sheet and now the matter is pending before the learned Sessions Judge. At this stage, this petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings.

3. Heard Sri K M Moddie, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Smt Anuradha Desai, Addl. SPP for the respondent.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the very police had registered four other cases in Crime Nos.253/2002, 254/2002, 255/2002 and 256/2002. In all these cases, the date, time and place of incident is shown as 21.12.2002 at 14.15, 14.20, 14.30 and 14.20 p.m. respectively and the place of incident is one and the same. He also submitted that jurisdictional police and the accused in all these crime are also one and the same. The motive and other allegations are also one and the same. The present crime is registered for the offence alleged to have taken place between 2.15 to 2.45 p.m. on the same day i.e., 21.12.2002 by the same accused at the same place with the same motive. He submitted that, if the incident has taken place between 2.15 to 2.45 p.m. the police, could have registered one crime as against the said incident. However, police with intention to implicate these accused in as many cases as possible, they went on registering the case one after the another i.e., between 2.15 p.m. to 2.45 p.m. Though four cases were separately registered at the interval of 5 to 10 minutes each, being not satisfied with the same, one more case was registered i.e., the present Crime No.257/2002, the time of incident is shown as 2.15 to 2.45 p.m. which is nothing but covering the earlier offences. He submitted that having registered the case for the same offence in four different crime cases, without any other incident and for the same offence, the present crime is registered.

5. He further submitted that, these accused, who were also the accused in other four cases, were tried and have been acquitted, allegation in Crime No.253/2002 and the allegation in Crime No.257/2002 literally one and the same. Even the incident time, date and pl