-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TFI DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.P.NO. 10106/2011 Between: Omprakash Mahadev Bannur, Age 50 years, 0cc.: Private Job, R/o.Maruti Nagar, Naka No.1, Gokak, Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belgaum. 2. Ningappa Dundappa Bannur, Age 50 years, 0cc.: Agriculture, R/o.Kumbar Oni, Mamdapur, Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belgaum. 3. Shivanand Mahadev Bannur, Age 42 years, 0cc.: Advocate, R/o. Vidynagar, Gokak, Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belgaum. 4. Smt.Sangeeta Shivanand Bannur, Age 38 years, 0cc.: Advocate, R/o. Vidynagar, Gokak, Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belgaum. 5. Smt.Vanita Omprakash Bannur, Age 40 years, 0cc.: Household work, R,/o.Maruti Nagar, Naka No.1, Gokak, Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belgaum. 6. Smt.Mahadevi Ningappa Bannur, Age 42 years, 0cc.: Household work, R/o.Kumbar Oni, Mamdapur, Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belgaum. -2- 7. Dundappa Mallappa Bannur, Age 46 years, 0cc.: Agriculture, RIo. 1st Cross, Vidyanagar, Gokak, Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belgaum. Petitioners (By Sri.Srinand A.Pachhapur, Advocate) And: 1. The State of Karnataka, By Gokak Urban Police Station, Now represented by SPP. 2. Smt. Neelavva W/o.Mahadev Bannur, Age 65 years, 0cc.: Household work, R/o.Naka No.1, Gokak, Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belgaum. Respondents (By Sri. Vinayak Kulkarni, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No. 127612009 on the file Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gokak marked at Annexure-A. This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the petitioners’ counsel and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State for 1st respondent in respect of the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the proceedings initiate against them in Crime No.119/2009 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, -3- 148, 307, 232, 324, 504, 506 and 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Submission of the petitioners’ counsel is that, even in the entire complaint on its face value, there is no likely hood of offence under Section 307 being made out and moreover the complaint itself shows that there are certain words which are inserted in the middle of the sentence and this shows only as an after thought and with malafide intention, Section 307 has been mentioned. Therefore, it is argued that the question of offence under Section 307 being made out from the complaint allegation does not arise. Moreover the submission is made that there is a civil dispute between the parties that has 4-e€+i given rise to the present complaint against the petitioners. 3. On the other hand, submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader for State is that, the petitioners are at liberty to take the’ contention before the trial Court that thetigh offence under Section 307 is made out, it is for the trial Court to consider the offence$ while framing charge. -4- 4. Having thus heard both sides and taking note that the charge sheet has been submitted and according to the petitioners’ counsel the case is also said to have committed to the Sessions Court, all the contentions now put forward can be urged by the petitioners’ before the trial Court at the stage of framing of the charge and the trial Court shall consider the aforesaid contention of the petitioners’ that offence under Section 307 is not made out in the complaint averments. 5. With the above observations, petition stands disposed of. Sd/ * JUDGE