The High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the allegations presented significant triable issues requiring a complete trial.

ORAL ORDER

The cases at hand are preferred by different accused. In Special C.C.No.329/2021, Crl.P.No.8404/2024 is preferred by accused No.3 while companion Petition in Crl.P.No.12903/2023 is preferred by accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 11. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Crl.P.No.8404/2024 is narrated.

2. In Crl.P.No.8404/2024, heard Sri.Akram Pasha K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.M.Munigangappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. In Crl.P.No.12903/2023, heard Sri.Subramanya H.V, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.M.Munigangappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on 6.4.2021 on an incident that takes place on 2.2.2021 at about 9.30 p.m. The said complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.54/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 324, 354, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015.

4. The police then conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the accused in the cases at hand. Filing of the charge sheet has driven these accused to this Court in the subject petitions. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases would project similar contentions of the crime being registered as a counter blast. Learned counsel submits that several proceedings are instituted including a matrimonial case due to which the present complaint is a counter blast. Apart from the said fact, the learned counsel submits that the complaint is registered on 6.4.2021 for an incident that allegedly takes place on 2.2.2021. There was a delay of 65 days in registering the complaint. Learned counsel submits that if at all there was an assault that is happened in the case at hand and hurling of abuses that has happened, the complainant ought to have registered a crime immediately. Therefore, would submit that the petitions be allowed and the proceedings be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP representing the State would take this Court through the documents appended to the petitions which are the charge sheet material and the charge sheet itself to indicate that the matter would require a trial as there are serious allegations of assault and hurling of abuses in broad day light in a place of public view or public place as the case would be. He would submit that the discharge application filed by the petitioners before the concerned Court have also been rejected and this Court should not interfere in cases where the allegations are grave in nature.

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

7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The petitioners are the accused as indicated hereinabove. On 6.4.2021, a complaint comes to be registered by the 2^nd respondent-complainant one Manjunath. The complaint reads as follows:

During the investigation, the police have also recorded the statement of the victim and the independent witnesses and they have also placed the wound certificate which shows that there are injuries though not grievous in nature but there are injuries that is a result of the assault by the petitioners on the mother of the complainant.

8. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance that there is assault and there is hurling of abuses, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full-blown trial for the reason that what is projected before this Court, is