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

- 1 -

CRL.P No. 100442 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD

BENCH

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT

CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100442 OF 2020 (482-)

BETWEEN:

1.

ALLAHBAX GULAB SHAIKH

AGE. 49 YEARS,

OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O UGAR KHURD,

TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI-591316.

2.

ROSHANBI GULAAB SHAIKH

AGE. 67 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,

R/O UGAR KHURD,

TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI-591316.

3.

SHABAANA ALLABAX SHAIKH

AGE. 39 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,

R/O UGAR KHUR,

TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI-591316.

4.

SHAMSHODDIN GULAAB LAANDAGE

AGE. 36 YEARS,

V N

BADIGER

Digitally signed by V

N BADIGER

Location: DHARWAD

Date: 2022.04.24

13:05:32 +0530

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 100442 of 2020

OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O UGAR KHURD,

TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI-591316.

5.

MOHAMMAD GULAAB LAANDAGE

AGE. 35 YEARS,

OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O UGAR KHURD,

TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI-591316.

6.

BAANUMAA RAMAZAAN GODAD

AGE. 62 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,

R/O UGAR KHURD,

TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI-591316.

7.

YAASMEEN MOHAMMAD LAANDAGE

AGE. 39 YEARS,

OCC.HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O UGAR KHURD,

TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI-591316.

8.

RAMEJAA SHABBIR ALASE,

AGE. 35 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,

R/O SHIRGUPPI,

TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI-591316.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M. B. GUNDAWADE

- 3 -

CRL.P No. 100442 of 2020

AND SRI A. M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH, AT:DHARWAD,

THROUGH KAGWAD POLICE STATION.

2.

GAFOOR SHAHBUDDIN SANADI

AGE. 54 YEARS,

OCC. LABOUR CONTRACTOR,

R/O MARATHA GALLI,

UGAR KHURD,

TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI-591316.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1,

SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS

AGAINST THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 8, IN

C.C.NO.2425/2019 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL

JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, ATHANI, FOR THE ALLEGED

OFFENCES U/SEC.143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307,

504, 506 R/W 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 4 -

CRL.P No. 100442 of 2020

The first information report was lodged by the second

respondent alleging that the petitioners/accused abused

him in filthy language and threatened him with dire

consequences,

and

also

assaulted

him.

The

police

registered the FIR against the petitioners for the offences

punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504,

506 read with 149 of IPC in crime No.30/2013. The police

after investigation filed a charge sheet for the aforesaid

offences

alleged

to

have

been

committed

by

the

petitioners/accused.

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the

aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioners.

Such being the case, the second respondent

filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

alleging that though the petitioners have committed an

offence punishable under Section 307, the police by

dropping the said offence have filed charge sheet for the

- 5 -

aforesaid offences. The learned Magistrate took cognizance

of the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and

other offences and thereafter referred the matter to the

police for investigation under Section 156(3) of IPC.

Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would make two fold statements:

Firstly, the police having filed the charge sheet

against the petitioners and the learned Magistrate having

taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the

petitioners, the filing of the private complaint under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on the very same incident is not

maintainable in law, since, it violates article 21 of the

constitution of India. In support, reliance is placed on the

decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in

Crl.P.No.3171/2018.

Secondly, he submits that the offences alleged

against the petitioners are triable by the learned Sessions

Judge, however, the learned Magistrate without having

- 6 -

any jurisdiction has referred the matter to the police for

investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which is

impermissible.

The

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

respondent No.2 submits that the learned Magistrate by

exercising the power under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. has

rightly referred the matter to the police for investigation

under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. He further submits that

the material produced before the learned Magistrate

clearly disclose that the commission of the offences

punishable under Section 307 of IPC. However, the police

have not filed charge sheet for the said offence though

sufficient material was valuable.

On

the

other

hand,

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that

the police after considering the material on record have

rightly issued the endorsement that in view of the filing of

the charge sheet on the very same incident further

- 7 -

investigation

cannot

be

proceeded

against

the

petitioners/accused.

I have considered the submission made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

It is undisputed fact that the charge sheet filed

against the petitioners/accused in Crime No.30/2013 and

the private complaint filed by the second respondents are

arising out of the very same incident between the same

parties.

9.

It is also undisputed that, when the private

complaint was filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the

police after investigation had filed charge sheet and the

learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet had

taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the

petitioners.

10.

Section 210 of Cr.P.C. specifies that the learned

Magistrate during the course of enquiry shall stay the

proceedings of such inquiry or trial, when it is brought to

- 8 -

the notice of the learned Magistrate and call for the report

of inquiry or trial from the police during the course of the

investigation in relation to the offence which is the subject

matter of the inquiry. In the present case when the private

complaint was filed by the second respondent, the police

had already investigated the matter and submitted the

charge sheet. Since, the investigati

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top