IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7243 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1.

Shankarachari.K

S/o Papannachari

Aged about 64 years

Indiranagara

Bengaluru City

Karnataka-560 038.

2.

Leelamma

W/o.Shankrachary

Indiranagara

Bengaluru City

Karnataka-560 038.

…Petitioners

(By Sri.Rudrappa P, Advocate for

Sri.Mohankumar D, Advocate)

AND:

1.

State by

Cubbon Park Police Station

Represented by

State Public Prosecutor

High Court of Karnataka

Bengaluru-560 001.

2.

Purushothama.S

S/o.Sadashivachar

Aged about 23 years

No.439, 6^th Cross,

2

Bhuvaneswari Nagara,

Subramanya Pura Post,

Bengaluru-560 061.

…Respondents

(By Sri.S.Rachaiah, HCGP for R1)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482

of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the

F.I.R in Cr.No.140/2018 dated 23.07.2018 on the file of

VIII Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru for the offence

punishable under Section 323, 324, 504, 506, 341 read

with 149 of IPC registered by the respondent No.1 with

respect to the petitioners herein concerned vide

Annexure-B.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission,

this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard Sri. Rudrappa, P learned counsel appearing

for petitioners and Sri. S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP

appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.

2.

Petitioners, who have been arraigned as

accused Nos.5 and 9 in Cr.No.140/2018 registered by

Cubbon Park Police Station for the offence punishable

under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 341, 149 of IPC are

before this Court for quashing of the said proceedings-

primarily contending that petitioners were not there at

3

the scene of occurrence of the alleged offence and they

were in college; and allegations made in the complaint

do not prima facie indicate any overt acts alleged to

have been committed by them.

3.

While considering the prayer or plea for

quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,

this Court would not examine into the probable defense

that accused may put up or raise during course of trial.

On a meaningful reading of the complaint, if it does not

disclose the offence alleged against the petitioners or

the said allegations being vexatious and frivolous and in

the event of same were to remain unrebutted it may not

end in conviction are good grounds for this Court to

invoke

extraordinary

jurisdiction

to

quash

the

proceedings and not otherwise. In the instant case,

plea that is sought to be put forward by the petitioner

would clearly indicate that it is a matter of defense

which requires to be examined by the jurisdictional

Court at the time of framing of charge.

4

4.

In that view of the matter, this Court do not

find any good ground to entertain the petition and

hence, liberty is reserved to petitioner to urge these

grounds either at the time of framing of charges or at

the time of trial, as they so desire, this petition stands

rejected.

In view of dismissal of the main petition,

IA.No.2/2018

for

stay

does

not

survive

for

consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.2/2018 is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ag