In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH ON THE 5 th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH CRIMINAL PETITION No.101600/2015 BETWEEN 1. BHIMAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA MALAGALI, AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, 2. MARUTI S/O SIDDAPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 3. KAREPPA S/O SIDDAPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 4. SOMAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 5. KENCHAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 6. VITHAL S/O SIDDAPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 7. PANDURANG S/O BHIMAPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 8. KRISHNA S/O BHIMAPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 9. NAKUL S/O MARUTI MALAGALI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 10. SURESH S/O MARUTI MALAGALI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE : 2 : 11. REVANSIDDAPPA S/O KAREPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 12. HANUMANT S/O KAREPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 13. SANGAPPA S/O SOMAPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 14. PUNDALIK S/O SOMAPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 15. DYAMAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA MALAGALI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE 16. MANJUNATH S/O VITHAL MALAGALI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE ALL ARE R/O: MABANUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. ... PETITIONERs (By Sri S M KALWAD, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PSI SAVADATTI P.S, THROUGH ADDITIONAL SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. 2. FAKKIRAPPA S/O BASALINGAPPA METI, AGE:MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MABANUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1. R2 SERVED.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.704/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SAUNDATTI BELGAUM IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC. : 3 : THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The case of the prosecution is that on 23.01.2011, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging that the accused drove the tractor through his land and when they were questioned, the accused, with the common intention, picked up a quarrel, aBused him in filthy language and assaulted him, his Brother’s wife and daughter-in-law with cluBs on the ear and head; they attempted to outrage the modesty of his wife By dragging her saree and Beat with hands. They threatened them with death. Based on the complaint lodged, a case was registered in Crime No.35/2011 for the offences punishaBle under Sections 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Seeking to quash the proceedings, the present petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there are series of allegations against one another. That the : 4 : present complaint is lodged only to cause harassment to the petitioners. 3. On hearing learned counsel, I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. There is suBstantial material against the accused in the manner in which they have conducted themselves. They have assaulted the complainant, his Brother’s wife and daughter-in-law with deadly weapons. They have tried to outrage the modesty of complainant’s wife and have assaulted her with hands. Hence, suBstantial material exists for trial. I do not find any good ground to quash the proceedings. Consequently, the petition Being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE kmv.

Load more