IN TIlE I 11(114 COURI 01: KARNATAKA CIRCL JIT I3ENUI I Al DI IARWA)) I)AiED TillS •flIE 21 DAY OF SEP1EMIWR 2011 BEFORE ThE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRiMiNAL PETITION No.10377/20 1 I BETWEEN: 1. Siddappa Maruti Jigan Age: 55 years. 0cc: Agriculture. Rb. I landyanwadi. Tq: (hikkodi. 2. Sanjay Siddappa Jigan Age: 28 years. 0cc: Agriculture. RloiIandyanwadi. Tq: Chikkodi. 3. Kumar Siddappa Jigan Age: 25 years. 0cc: Agriculture. Rio.) Iandyanwadi. Tq: Chikkodi. Petitioners (By Shri M.J.Peerjade. Advocate.) AND The State of Karnataka. Through PSI. Chikkodi Police Station. R by SPP l)harwad. Respondent (fly Shri Vinayak s. Kulkarni.Govemment Pleader.) This Criminal Petition is liled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the complaint and all further proceedings arising out of the complaint in C.C.No.868;2010 e pending belore the Principal .1 \1 I C. ( h ikkod I. har the oticnees under Section 323. 504 read ith Section 34 oI the Indian Penal Code. I h i petition corning on Ir adm iion this da\ the (ourt made the 1ollo tug: ORI)ER I I card the learned con use 1 11w the petitioner. 2. Ii is the petitioners case that a complaint is lodged h\ one Tippanna Prabhu (ion i ol I land\ anv ad i alleging that on 20 2010 at 04—00 pm.. hue the eomplainant along ith others crc orking on their land. the petitioners ho \ crc passing through their land spat at hi in and ‘ hen the nephe\\ of the complainant. nameR - Prahhu. raised objection. pelt tioner No. I is said to have abused him in foul language and thcrealler the petitioners proceeded to assault them and ‘a hen others tried to inter\ ene the ‘a crc also abused and assaulted together b\ all the petitioulers. It is on that complaint a case has been registered 11w ullcnces punishable tinder Sections 133. I 4. 323. 504 06 read ‘a ith Section 149 ot the Indian Penal Code. I b() ( hereinalier re lerred to as I PC. 11w bre\ it\ and aller completion ol the ifl\ estigation the police ha e l led charge sheet flr the o Ilcnces punishable tinder Sections 323. 504 read ‘a ith Section 4 of the I I>( 3. the learned counsel for the petitioner ssould submit that though the complaint ssas preferred against the petitioners and the others. at the stage of tiling of the charge sheet. lb e of the accused has e been jettisoned and the) are no longer included in the charge sheet. And it is Ilirther alleged that though the oftènces alleged “crc under the abose Section. the offimees punishable under Sections 143. 147. 148. 506 of the IPU hase also been discarded. 1 he learned counsel 11w the petitioner ssould. thereibre. submit that the case has no” been cons erted into non-eogniiahle case hereh) the ins estigation could not has e been conducted ss ithout the order of the Magistrate. On facts. he ‘sould submit that though the case is registered against three persons. there are no allegations of assault against tso of them and hence their inclusion as the accused ssould result in gras e injustice and the petitioners has e to suffer the trial. It is on these arounds that the learned counsel seeks inten ention of this Court to quash the proceedings. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Apes Court in the ease of John I homds ss. I )r.LJa?adeesan. 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Crii 9fl4• to contend that Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.. 11w bres it)) cannot he pressed into sen ice insofar as the petitioners 4 are coiieerned to seek discharge as suggested by the learned (jineniment Pleader since there are no special circumstance that can he made out in the present case on hand and therefore the learned counsel would seek interention of this Court on the ahoe infirmities in law and on facts. 4. 1 laying regard to the abo e contention and the learned (Jot ernment Pleader also pointing out that the learned counsel seeking to rely on the judgment of the ApeN Court is wholly misplaced as the same tunis on different facts and circumstances and on a plain reading of Section 258 of the Cr.P.C.. the petitioners are not precluded from seeking discharge. if no ease is made out against them and the petitioners ma’ he well ad ised to appear before the Magistrate and to seek discharge especiall where a counter case is filed by the petitioner themsel es. which is also being tried by the ery Magistrate. 1 knee inten ention at this stage would result in a miscarriage of justice and he would submit that the petition be rejected at the threshold. 5. Gi’. en the aNn e facts and circumstances, as rightly pointed by the (iosernment Pleader. if the petitioner being in a position to point out seeral infirmities on which he would contend S that the proceedin!s are \ itiated. both in la and on facts, the petitioners are not precluded Irom urging the same helore the Magistrate. I he counsel’s contention that it is not posihle to press into •ser ice Section 258 of the CrP.C. and seekine to place reliance on the j udgment o I’ the Apc\ Court is not tenable. On a plain reading ol Section 28 ol the Cr.PC., there is no such qtial i tication. as i sought to be claimed h\ the learned counsel br the petitioner. appended to Section 258 of the Cr. 1>.C. It the petitioners are in a position to satis R the Magistrate that there is no case niade out on the allegations and the e idenee that ma he tendered. it is possible for the petitioners to seek discharge befarc the Magistrate. I leiice ihere is no arrant for iIiter\ cut ion h this C’otiri at this stage. I he petition is rejected. Sd/ JUDGE Mrk/