SHIVANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Cr.P.C .', for brevity) by accused No.2 seeking to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C. No.44/2016 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Haveri, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 109 , 332 , 353 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ' IPC ', for brevity).

(2.) The factual matrix of the case are that on 09.03.2016, Haveri Town Police have registered a case against the petitioner and another in their P.S. Crime No.114/2016 for the offences under Sections 109 , 332 , 353 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and the said case is registered on the basis of the complaint given by one Shivakumar s/o Vishwanath Laksashetti. The petitioner is shown as accused No.2. Accused No.1 is working in the Shivanand Enterprises of Haveri which has dealings in agriculture equipments. On 09.03.2016, the informant-Shivakumar, who was in the official duty at Krishi Kendra and agriculturists were approached Shivanand Enterprises who have made the payment to the said Shivanand Enterprises through bank with regard to supply of sprinkler etc. As the sprinkler sets were not supplied to them, the agriculturists namely CW-4-Manjappa, CW-5- Mallikarjun, CW-6-Prakash visited the Raita Samparka Kendra and contacted the informant/complainant Shivakumar, who in turn instructed that sprinkler sets were not supplied by Shivanand enterprises and asked them to go and contact the said enterprises. Accordingly, agriculturists went to the said Shivanand Enterprises and enquired with accused No.1-Gadigayya Basavaraj Hiremath who was present at the shop and on enquiry he told that they have already supplied the same to the Agriculture Department. So the agriculturists secured the informant to the said enterprises at about 5.20 pm the informant enquired with accused No.1 who was present at the shop and accused No.1 has not given proper reply and questioned the informant and also told them to enquire with Shivanand Rumalimath on his arrival to the shop and abused. As the informant was not satisfied with the behaviour of accused No.1, he advised accused No.1 and in turn accused No.1 told that accused No.2 has instructed him to take them to task and assault him and he will take care. Accused No.1 obstructed the official duty of the informant by manhandling the informant and also assaulting him with hands.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the FIR, complaint and charge sheet papers.