ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.5028/2022 arising out of Crime No.153/2021 registered by Sathnoor Police Station, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District for having charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.2-PSI of Sathnoor Police Station had given report that on 30.08.2018 around 12.30 p.m. one Mahesh who is the resident of Dhanthoor Village of Sathnoor Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk lodged a complaint stating that on 29.08.2018, when he was in Bengaluru at 1.30 p.m., he received a call from the Villagers that his elder brother was succumbed to death by committing suicide. While burying the dead body, he found some injuries on the body, therefore, suspected the death of his brother. Based upon the report, the Police registered the UDR No.17/2018 under Section 174(c) of Cr.P.C. and enquiry was conducted. Subsequently, the dead body was subjected to the post mortem examination and the doctor has not given any opinion. However he has collected viscera of the deceased, sent the same to the FSL and after receiving the report, the opinion was obtained from the doctor stating that death was due to strangulation. Then after the enquiry, he registered the FIR against the wife of the deceased showing the name of this petitioner as accused No.2 contending that there was intimacy between accused Nos.1 and 2 and they have committed the murder of the deceased by strangulation. Hence, he registered the FIR in Crime No.153/2021 on 4.9.2021 and also filed the charge sheet which is under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the name of the petitioner was not found in the complaint given by the brother which was registered as UDR. There is no material to show that there was intimacy between the accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no connection or telephonic conversation or CDR collected by the Investigating Officer to say that this petitioner had conspired with accused No.1 and committed murder on

29.08.2018.

5. The learned counsel further contended that there is no witness suspected the petitioner at the time of death of the deceased who was committed suicide. Even in the post mortem report, there was nothing revealed and it was a homicidal death. Absolutely, there is no material to show that this petitioner was found near the place of occurrence either prior to the incident or after the incident on the ground of suspicion. His name has been implicated without any evidence on record.

6. The learned counsel also contended that after three years of incident, the FIR was registered against the petitioner and filed the charge sheet by falsely implicating the petitioner and further contended that there are two witnesses examined just prior to the filing of the charge sheet that they came to know there was intimacy between accused Nos.1 and 2. But there is no direct evidence that they have seen or witnessed accused Nos.1 and 2 were together at any point of time. The Investigating Officer created false story while filing the charge sheet by showing the petitioner as accused No.2. Hence, the criminal proceedings against this petitioner is not sustainable. Hence, prayed for quashing the same. In support of his case, the learned counsel has relied upon some judgments.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the petition contending that the death was homicidal death and the doctor has given opinion that the death was due to strangulation. He has further contended that there are circumstantial witnesses C.Ws.10, 14 and 15 who have stated that accused No.2 used to visit the house of the deceased to see accused No.1, the wife of deceased. The complaint has been lodged on