Charges require substantial evidence of accused's involvement; lack of prima facie material justifies quashing proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.25648/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 323, 324, 325, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC .

2. Heard Sri. Girishkumar R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. The complainant though served remains unrepresented even today.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and the 2^nd respondent is the de-facto complainant. On an incident that happens on 09.06.2003, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.240/2003 by respondent No.1 on the score that several advocates were involved in a scuffle with the police on the said date. Another crime comes to be registered in Crime No.241/2003 pursuant to the statement made by the 2^nd respondent on the same incident. The statement so made by the 2^nd respondent states that the petitioner and several other advocates were involved in assaulting the complainant. The police conduct investigation in Crime No.241/2003 and file the charge sheet against the petitioner, which is now pending in C.C.No.25648/2018 before the concerned Court. The filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that none of the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 325 or 506 of the IPC , as the case would be, are met in the case at hand, and that the other offences that are invoked against the petitioner arise from the same incident. He further submits that, for what has happened in the Court premises, in no way can the afore-quoted offences be met in the case at hand.

5. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was involved in assaulting the complainant on the aforesaid date in the Court premises, and the offences alleged in the FIR and the chargesheet are clearly made against the petitioner, and therefore, no lenience should be shown, and the petitioner should be directed to face trial and come out clean in a full blown trial.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. An incident happening in the Court premises on 09.06.2003 leads respondent No.1 – police to register a crime in Crime No.240/2003. On the statement of the 2^nd respondent recorded before the concerned Court, another crime comes to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.241/2003. The statement of respondent No.2 reads as follows:

The police, after conducting investigation in Crime No.241/2003, file the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in Column No.7, reads as follows:

8. The issue now would be, when the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, whether it would amount to the alleged offences or otherwise. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 323 , 324 325 and 506 of the IPC , being the primary offences inter alia.

9. For an offence to become punishable under Section 323 of the IPC , the ingredients as obtaining under Sections 319 and 321 should be necessarily met. The statement of the 2nd respondent or the chargesheet so filed are not indicative of the fact that the petitioner had assaulted respondent No.2 to constitute the offence punishable under of the . The interpretation of Section 324 of the need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.

9.1. The Apex Court, in the case of ABHISHEK SAXENA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH