Blog

 

 

Sri. S. Rajendra Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka

22 May, 2023

Bench: Hon’ble K.Natarajan

 

Introduction:

In the Indian legal system, the right to seek redressal and challenge criminal proceedings is an integral part of ensuring justice. The provision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) empowers individuals to file petitions for quashing criminal proceedings. This blog delves into a specific case involving the petitioner-accused No.6 and provides an analysis of the arguments presented, the court’s decision, and the implications of such petitions in ensuring a fair and just legal process.

Background of the Case:

The petitioner-accused No.6 has filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings pending against them. The case, C.C.No.10026/2022, originated from Crime No.100/2022 registered by Nelamangala Town Police Station, Bengaluru. The charges against the accused include various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) such as Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 323, 329, 384, 307, 353, 332, 504, 506, along with Section 149.

Indian Penal Code:-

Section	Content
143	Punishment for members of an unlawful assembly
147	Punishment for those guilty of rioting
148	Punishment for those guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death
114	Punishment for abettor who is present when offence is committed
323	Punishment for whoever voluntarily causes hurt
329	Punishment for those who voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act
384	Punishment for extortion
307	Punishment for whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder
353	Punishment for the offence of assault upon a public servant by causing hurt or grievous hurt in order to deter or obstruct him in the discharge of duties
332	Punishment for whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant
504	Punishment for whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace
506	Punishment for criminal intimidation
149	Punishment for members of an unlawful assembly acting with the intention to fulfil a common objective

Arguments Presented:

The counsel representing the petitioner argued that their client is innocent of the alleged offences. They contended that the petitioner, a friend of accused No.1, had gone to their house for dinner, and there were no illegal activities or unlawful assembly present. The counsel specifically disputed the applicability of Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to public servant) of the IPC to the petitioner’s case. Based on these grounds, the counsel sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings.

 

Counter-arguments:

The learned High Court Government Pleader, representing the respondents, opposed the petition. They argued that the police had received credible information about illegal activities taking place at the house of accused No.1. When the police arrived at the scene, all the accused persons obstructed them from discharging their official duties, which constitutes an offence under Section 353 of the IPC. The counter-arguments further stated that a scuffle ensued, resulting in the assault of the complainant and other police officials, which attracts the provisions of Sections 307 and 332 of the IPC. The respondents also highlighted the allegations of verbal abuse, threats, and the formation of an unlawful assembly by the accused, leading to charges under Sections 504, 506, 323, and 149 of the IPC.

Court’s Decision and Analysis:

After considering the arguments presented and examining the records, the court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.6. The court noted that the police had received credible information about illegal activities at the location, which led them to visit the house of accused No.1. The accused obstructed the police, scolded them, and engaged in a scuffle with the intention to commit murder, resulting in injuries to the complainant and police officials. The court emphasized that the charges against the petitioner and other accused were supported by the seizure of relevant evidence, including play cards, liquor bottles, cash, and clubs.

The court further reasoned that the actions of the accused, including assaulting the police, verbally abusing them, and threatening their lives, constitute offences punishable under the IPC. The court noted the presence of a common object and common intention among the accused, leading to the charge under Section 149 of the IPC for forming an unlawful assembly. Given the establishment of the common object and common intention in the charge sheet, the court concluded that the petitioner must face trial, as the evidence could not be appreciated without conducting a proper trial.

Implications and Significance:

The court’s decision in this case reaffirms the importance of allowing criminal trials to proceed and weigh the evidence presented. Quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not suitable when there is a reasonable basis for the charges and the existence of a prima facie case against the accused. The decision also highlights the significance of preserving the integrity of the legal process and ensuring that all relevant evidence is examined during the trial.

 

Conclusion:

The case discussed above exemplifies the complexities involved in seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. While the right to file such petitions is essential to safeguard individual rights, the court’s decision ultimately depends on a careful analysis of the facts, evidence, and applicable laws. It is crucial for individuals involved in similar cases to understand the nuances of quashing petitions and seek appropriate legal counsel to navigate the legal process effectively.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR

click here to view judgement