Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, J.
Sri. S.S. Naganand S/o S.G. Sundaraswamy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6652 of 2013
Decided on : 28-01-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Sr. Counsel for Sri. Srinivasa Rao .S.S – Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R1; Sri. Suresh M. Latur
Point of law:Quash of Criminal proceedings -in criminal justice delivery system, the offence alleged has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt for securing conviction. If clouds of doubt occur, the benefit of doubt shall be accrued in favour of the accused alone
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338 - IMV Act - Section 134(A)(B), 187 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 301 and 482 – Offence of Rash driving or riding on public place – Charged - Seeking to quash the criminal proceedings - Respondent No.2/ though has engaged services of counsel said counsel is neither present before court physically nor appears through video conferencing - However, in this matter, it is relevant to refer to Section 301 of Cr.P.C - When once case has been registered by police by recording an FIR in Cr.No. and then, domain is vested with Public Prosecutor/High Court Government Pleader to appear and plead without any written authority before court - Hence, it is said that learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 is representing not only State but also complainant - complaint filed by complainant with Chickballapur Rural P.S. at around 10.30 a.m. stating that on complainant and his daughter were returning home in a TVS moped bearing No.KA05HJ9344 after meeting an astrologer –
Finding of the Court:
it is relevant for intervention to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C - Whereas in this Section 482 Cr.P.C., nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect inherent powers of High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice - Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. though it has been enshrined saving of inherent power of High Court, this power shall be exercised judicially, judiciously, sparingly and cautiously- but there would be justification for interference only when concept of complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous, vexatious or oppressive - But in instant case, it does not arise for even dwelling into materials secured by Investigating Agency in Cr.No. in order to lay chargesheet against accused in C.C.No - Therefore, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in instant case - If not, gravamen of accused would be sufferer - In view of aforesaid reasons, it is said that there is no hesitation to quash case in C.C.No. pending before Court of Senior Civil Judge & CJM, arising out –
Result: Petition allowed
ORDER :
The petitioner is arraigned as an accused in C.C.No.108/2013 arising out of Cr.No.346/2012 registered by the Chickballapura Rural P.S. for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC, 1860 read with Section 134(A)(B), 187 of the IMV Act. The petitioner is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.108/2013 pending before Court of the Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chickballapur.
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Shri Ashok Haranahalli for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State. In this matter, Respondent No.2/Venkateshappa though has engaged the services of the counsel Shri Suresh M. Lathur, the said counsel is neither present before court physically nor appears through video conferencing. However, in this matter, it is relevant to refer to Section 301 of the Cr.P.C. When once the case has been registered by the police by recording an FIR in Cr.No.346/2012 and then, the domain is vested with the Public Prosecutor/High Court Government Pleader to appear and plead without any written authority before the court. Hence, it is said that learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 is representing not only the State but also the complainant under Section 301 of the Cr.P.C. Though Respondent No.2 has engaged the services of a counsel, but the said counsel cannot independently address arguments but only can assist the learned HCGP for the State. Accordingly, heard the arguments of the learned HCGP on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, based upon the complaint filed by the complainant Venkateshappa with the Chickballapur Rural P.S. on 30.08.2012 at around 10.30 a.m. stating that on 22.07.2012, the complainant Venkateshappa and his daughter Chikkanarayanamma were returning home in a TVS moped bearing No.KA05HJ9344 after meeting an astrologer at Devastanadahosahalli near Chickaballapur. While they were on their way to home on NH7 at around 3.00 p.m., near Doddapylagurki Gate, while he was taking ‘U’ turn slowly, that a car bearing No.KA01/MG2383 which was coming from Hyderabad side in a rash and negligent manner, had hit on the TVS moped. As a result of that, the complainant Venkateshappa had sustained accidental injuries on his left elbow and left leg and also some abrasions on his right palm, forehead, left arm and on the back. Similarly, his daughter Chikkanarayanamma had also sustained abrasion on both her knees. The persons who were present nearby the scene of crime had secured an ambulance and had sent both of them to Chickaballapur Government Hospital and after the Doctor there had provided first aid to them, on the Doctor’s advice, they were shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, in order to provide better treatment.
But the driver of the offending car and its owner had approached the second respondent and paid him a sum of Rs.40,000/for their treatment and also assured them of bearing the medical expenditure. But subsequently on filing a complaint by the complainant, the case in Cr.No.346/2012 came to be registered by the Chickaballapur Rural P.S. and the case was taken up by the Investigating Agency and laid a chargesheet against the accused in C.C.No.108/2013. This is the pith and substance of the allegations made in the complaint and also reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by the Chickaballapur Rural P.S.
4. The learned Senior counsel Shri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the petitioner contends that through the second respondent, namely Venkateshappa had suffered injuries on his left leg and also abrasion injuries on his right arm and so also on the part of his forehead and so also left arm, but the injured Venkateshappa was firstly provided treatment at the Government Hospital, Chickamagalur and thereafter was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment and that the petitioner had visited the second respondent/injured at Bowring Hospital where he was admitted and had paid him Rs.40,000/towards treatment expenses
