1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2223/2012

BETWEEN:

DINESH SHETTY @ CHANDRASHEKHER SHETTY S/O. RAJASHEKARA SHETTY AGED 27 YEARS R/O. LINGAPURA VILLAGE HOBLI, BELUR TALUK . ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM & SRI RAHUL RAI K., FOR M/s. DHARMASHREE ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GONIBEEDU POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.567/2010 REGISTERED AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), JMFC COURT, MUDIGERE.

2

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner, arraigned as accused No.8, in C.C.

No.567/2010, on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and

JMFC, Mudigere, has filed this petition to quash the proceedings of the said case, in so far as he is concerned.

2. Shri Aruna Shyam, learned advocate contended that the petitioner being accused No.2 was in

judicial custody from 22.11.2009 up to 15.05.2010, in C.C.

No.15/2010 (Crime No.294/2009), registered by the Aluru

Police. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged offence which is the subject matter of C.C.567/2010 having taken place on 07.02.2010, at about 1.44 a.m., it is unconceivable as to how the prosecution can allege that the petitioner was present at the spot and charge-sheet him in the commission of the alleged offences in

C.C.No.567/2010. Learned counsel invited my attention to the documents pertaining to C.C.No.15/2010 i.e., Order

Sheet and charge-sheet, produced as document Nos.5

3

and 6. It was contended by the learned advocate that there being abuse of process of law by the respondent, in prosecuting the petitioner in C.C.No.567/2010, interference is called for.

3. Sri B. Visweswaraiah, learned High Court

Government Pleader, having perused the Order Sheet and the charge-sheet of C.C.No.15/2010, on the file of Civil

Judge(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Holenarasipura, submitted that the arraigning of the petitioner, as accused No.8, in

C.C.No.567/2010 being an erroneous action, the petition may be allowed.

4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned advocates and the documents produced along with this petition, more particularly, the Order Sheet and charge-sheet of C.C.No.15/2010, on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, the petitioner being in judicial custody from 22.11.2009 to 15.05.2010, in terms of the order passed in said case, the respondent is wholly unjustified in alleging that the petitioner was present at

4

the spot, along with others, in the commission of crime on

07.02.2010, which is the subject matter of FIR in C.C.

No.567/2010.

5. In view of the unimpeachable documents,

particularly the record of C.C. No.15/2010, noticed supra,

there being abuse of process of law by the respondent, in

including the petitioner as accused No.8 in

C.C.No.567/2010, a case for exercise of the power under

S.482 Cr.P.C. is made out.

In the result, petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.567/2010 as against accused No.8 / petitioner herein, pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,

Mudigere, Chikkamagaluru District is quashed. However, learned Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law, as against the remaining accused persons.

Sd/- JUDGE

sac*