IN THE HIGH COURT OF IKARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7tI DAY OF APRIL. 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTiCE V. JAGANNATHAN CRIM1NAL PET11jJ2Qj1 BETWEEN: 1. Abdul Khadar S/o. Akbar Alisha Makandar Age: 30 years, 0cc: Baba R/o. Karoshi, Tq: Chikodi Dist: Belgaum. 2. Akbar Alisha S/o.lmamsha Makandar Age: 30 years. 0cc: Baba R/o. Karoshi, Tq: Chikodi Dist: Belgaum. PETITIONERS (By Sri. Lingaraj Maradi, Adv.) AND: The State of Karnataka Chikodi Police Station By SPP High Court Circuit Bench Dharwad. RESPONDENT (By Sri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS PILED U;’S 482 OP CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.20/2011 (C.C.NO.421/2010) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT-I, CHIKODI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 0L03.201 1, THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard Sri. Lingaraj Maradi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. and learned High Court Government Pleader to take notice for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner is before this court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying for quashing of the entire proceedings in S.C.No.20/201 1 on the file of Fast Track Court-I. Chikkodi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, though initially the case was registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 109 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. the trial court has framed the charges in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 307. 324. 109 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. It is his contention that accused No.2 is not at all involved in the commission of the alleged offence under Section 307 of the IPC. 4. Having thus heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and pursuant to the charge framed by the trial court, in my view, the petitioners are at liberty to take all these contentions before the trial court on merits. If the trial court, after considering the evidence on record, comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are not involved in committing the offence alleged under Section 307 of the IPC. the court would pass necessary orders. But, that does not mean that this court should interfere at this stage while the evidence is yet to be recorded. eq ‘I CD C, p. WI S. CD 0 Go S. CD ‘0a 0 ‘a. 0