IN THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATE[) THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOI3ER 2011 131 F()RE THE 1-ION’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANI) BYRARED[)Y CRlM1NAI. PETITION No.10864/2011 BETWEEN: Rarnananda S/o Shivararn Bhat, Age: 32 years, Occ:Archak in Shree\ 7 inayak, Dcv Temple. Idagunj i. R/o Mel ma Idagunj I. lq:IIona\ar. Dist:Uuara Kannada. 2. Narasimha S/o Shivaram I3haE Age: 36 veal’s. 0cc: Advocate and Archak in Shree\ 7 inayak Dcv Temple, Idagunji. R/o Melina Idagunji. Tc :1 lonavar, Dist: Uttara Kannada. 3. Manj unath So Shivaram Bhat, Aue: 44 veai’s. 0cc: Ai’chak in Shree \/inayak 1)ev Temple, idagunji. R/o Ylelina idagunji. 1ij:l lonavar. Dist:Uttara Kannada. ,,.. PETITIONERS (By Shri, G.M.I3haL Advocate) 2 ANI): 1. The State of Karnataka by Its Manki Police Station represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Circuit Bench I3uilding, Dharwad-580 011. 2. Smt. Mahadevi w/o Balachandra Bhat, Age: Major. 0cc: Housewife. R/o Melina Idagunji, Tq:Ifonavar, Dist:Uttara Kannada. .. .RESPONDENTS (By Shri.Anand K. Navalgimath. Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is tiled under Section 482 of Code ot’ Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the entire Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.391/20l I (Crime No.136/2010 of Manki P.S.) for the ofl’ences punishable under Sections 324. 354. 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of JMFC, Ilonavar. This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER I leard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 5 2. It is the case of the petitioners that a Ihise case has been registered against them in the wake of a dispute regarding management of the temple het\\ een trustees of the temple and the hereditary archaks on the one hand and another exoup of trustees on the other hand. It is contended that it is onl\ out of sheer spite that a false case has been registered and e en in the complaint, there is no direct allegation against the petitioners of having committed any olience. lie would submit that e en if the entire allegations are unrebutted, it ould not result in conviction of the petitioners. The learned counsel \\ ould point out that in an identical case. on identical allegations. this court has thought it ft to quash the proceedings agai list the petitioners therein. ho had approached this court earlier and therefore, b\ a parity of reasoning. would seek that the present petition he allo\\ed and the proceedings he quashed. 3. The leirned counsel ould further submit thHt the present stage heibre the trial court of the pending proceedings is 4 thai the petitioners are to be heard heibre liaming ot charge. If that he so, the petitioner is in a position to urge all the contentions raised in the present petition, including the fact that on identical allegations, an earl icr petition has been al lox ed h\ this court and the proceedings against the petitioners therein are quashed. hich v ould he a precedent he could press into ser\ ice and demonstrate that it v ould apply to the case of the petitioner as well. Since the trial court is in a more vanlageous position to appreciate the case ol the petitioner \\ ith relrence to the record, it is appropriate that the petitioner demonstrate helre the trial court as to the merits ol his case. Accordingly, \\ ithout prejudice to the case of the petitioners. the petition is disposed of since he with an eflicacious remedy helre the trial court itself. Sd/ JUDGE n ‘