SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NAGARAJ K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 8406/2016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8406 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Nagaraj K

S/o Krishna Naika,

Aged about 50 years,

R/at Sri Ganapathi Temple Road,

Hosanagara Town,

Hosanagara,

Shimoga District.

.. Petitioner

( By Sri Prasad B.S., Advocate )

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,

By Moodbidri Police

Mangalore Taluk-574 227,

Rep.by SPP,

High Court of Karnataka,

Bangalore-560 001.

2. Manohar, S/o Dejappa,

Aged about 35 years,

R/o Srikutira, Kayargundi,

Kodanghallu Post, Moodbidri,

Mangalore Taluk-574 227.

.. Respondents

( By Sri Abhijith K.S., HCGP for R-1

and R-2 - served)

CRL.P.No.8406/2016

2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.224/2016, of Moodbidri

Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under

Sections 417, 504, 323, 506, 420 of IPC, on the file of Civil

Judge and JMFC, Moodbidri, Mangalore.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission through

Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the

Court made the following:

ORDER

The present respondent No.2, joined by six more

complainants, has lodged a complaint with the 1st respondent-

Police Station on 22.8.2016, the summary of which is that the

present petitioner, who is the accused therein, was a contractor

for overseeing the water supply within the limits of Moodabidre

City Municipal Council, under whom all the complainants,

including the present respondent No.2, were working as

labourers. Though he was required to give them the monthly

wages through cheques or credit to their bank account, but, he

was not following the same, on the other hand, was giving far

less amount of not more than `7,300/- in cash, and thus, was

cheating them from their lawful entitlement. Even the said

salary was also not being paid at regular intervals and he was

harassing them. That being the case, on 19.8.2016, at about

1.00 p.m., the complainants met the accused (present

CRL.P.No.8406/2016

3

petitioner)

near

Government

Hospital,

Moodabidre

and

requested him for the timely releasing of the salary and

expressed their difficulty in the family. Being enraged by the

same, the accused (present petitioner) started abusing them in

filthy language and also physically assaulted the complainant -

Manohar (respondent No.2) with his hands. He also threatened

the complainants of dire consequences and put life threat to

them. A complaint in that regard was registered in the

1st respondent-Police Station against the present petitioner in

FIR, Crime No.224/2016, for the offences punishable under

Sections 417, 504, 323, 506, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as `IPC'). Seeking quashing

of the said FIR, the present petitioner is before this Court.

2. The respondent No.1 is being represented by learned

High Court Government Pleader and respondent No.2 though

served with the notice, has remained unrepresented.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his brief

arguments submitted that the present petitioner had filed a

complaint against one Ratnakara Devadiga, the then Municipal

Councilor of Moodabidre City Municipal Council, on 22.8.2016,

CRL.P.No.8406/2016

4

alleging the offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC and

under Section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Casts & Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as `SC/ST (POA) Act'). As a counter-blast, the said

Ratnakara Devadiga has instigated the complainants in the

present case to lodge a false complaint against the present

petitioner. In his support, he also drew the attention of this

Court to a copy of his alleged complaint against Ratnakara

Devadiga, which has been produced at Page No.20 of the

memorandum of petition. He further submits that the said

Ratnakara Devad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top