The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

proceedings in C.C.No.15297 of 2017 registered for offences

punishable under Sections 35, 332, 504 read with Section 34 of

the IPC.

2. Heard Sri R.Ranganath Reddy, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned

High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as

follows:-

Police constables attached to the Cubbon Park Police

Station

claim to have received credible information on

3

14.08.2016 at about 3.20 a.m. that some persons near WYT Pub

were involved in a squabble. After receipt of the information the

Police along with other staff visited the Pub and enquired about

the reason for the squabble with the Security Guard of the Pub.

The Security Guard appears to have pointed towards the

petitioners and two others to be the reason for causing trouble

in an inebriated state. The Police claim to have questioned the

accused persons as to why they were involved in the fight and

one of the accused appears to have replied in a manner that

would become punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 504 of

the IPC as the Police alleged that accused No.1 hit the

complainant on his face, accused No.2 had pushed the

complainant and accused 3 and 4, the petitioners had verbally

abused the complainant. On the basis of the said incident, the

crime is reported in Crime No.142 of 2016 for offences

punishable under Sections 356, 332, 504 and 34 of the IPC.

The police after investigation filed a charge sheet and the case is

now numbered as C.C.No15297 of 2017. The petitioners are two

girls who were along with accused 1 and 2 and arrayed as

4

accused 3 and 4 are before this Court calling in question the

said proceedings.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners were in no way involved in the

squabble. They were only watching accused 1 and 2 from a

distance and did not even raise their voice against the Police

who had intervened to resolve the squabble. The learned counsel

would

submit

that

use

of

criminal

force

against

the

complainant/ Police cannot be alleged against the petitioners.

The charge which had to be made against accused 1 and 2 is

made against the petitioners.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader would

however refute the submissions to contend that the petitioners

are guilty of the said offences as they were part of the four who

had in fact behaved in the manner that would become

punishable for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and

332 of the IPC which is a matter of trial.

5

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated incident on 14-08-2016 is not in

dispute. The entire issue revolves around the Police registering a

complaint against accused 1 to 4 for a squabble that happened

in the early hours of 14-08-2016. The Police after investigation

have filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet

reads as follows:

<¢£ÁAPÀ:13-14/09/2016 gÀAzÀÄ PÀ§â£ï¥ÁPïð ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À

1, 2 & 3 £Éà ©Ãmï£À gÁwæ UÀ¸ÀÄÛ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ¸ÁQë-9 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß

¤AiÉÆÃf¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢:14/09/16 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀV£À eÁªÀ oÁuɬÄAzÀ J¸ï.N

gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀªÁt PÀgÉ ªÀÄr ªÉÊmï ¥À¨ï §½ AiÀiÁgÉÆà ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À

ªÀiÁr UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ 00-40 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ

¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÀ§â£ï¥ÁPïð ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À°ègÀĪÀ JA.f gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÉÊmï

¥À¨ï §½ ºÉÆÃV £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV, ¥À¨ï ¢AzÀ PɼÀUÀqÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ CAPÀt-4gÀ°è PÀAqÀ

DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr, ¥À¨ï£À°è KPÉ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ¢j,

ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ w½¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝAvÉ, EzÀPÉÌ J1 DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä mÁåPïì¤AzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ

¸ÀA§¼À §gÀÄvÉÛ, £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ K£É

EzÀÝgÀÆ oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤Ãr JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ J1 & J2 DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1

gÀªÀjUÉ KPÁKQ ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ, ªÀÄÆVUÉ £ÉÆêÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ

J3 &