BAHMAN BAYBORDI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

(2.) Petitioner is the second accusedin C.C. No. 2348/87 pending on the file of the VI Add). Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. It is posted to 1-9-1990 for framing of charges. Allegations made against the petitioner and the other accused are that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 326 and 448 !PC on the allegations that the petitioner and the other accused criminally trespassed into the premises of the complainant Mohamed Amir Zehni at about 10-50 p.m. on 7-10-87 and assaulted him. Petitioner has filed this petition on 17-8-90 to quash all further proceedings in C.C. No. 2348/87 and to discharge him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that as per documents produced and marked as Annexure-M found at pages 48 to 50, petitioner, who is a foreigner, is permitted to reside in India till 31-8-1990 only and he has to leave the Country on or before the said date. It is also submitted that the petitioner has completed his studies and he would be subjected to great hardship and inconvenience if he has to stay in India beyond 31-8-90 in connection with C.C. 2348/87 pending against him at the stage of framing charges and that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said case alive as the first accused has already left the Country and the case is split against the petitioner-second accused and he came into picture of the said case when he was arrested and released on bail sometime in February, 1990. He further submitted that complainant has also left the Country in 1987 and one material witness who is cited to speak about the alleged incident is also not available. In my opinion, those are all not matters which this Court can take note of at this stage as it is for the prosecution to substantiate the allegations it has made against the petitioner in the charge-sheet.