N.R. SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the charge-sheet filed in Crime No.163/2017 and S.C.No.306/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 365, 511, 331, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-59).

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant, who is working as an advisor to Sri K.S.Eshwarappa, Opposition Leader, made the allegation that on 11.05.2017 at around 4.00 p.m., while he was travelling from his friend Jagadeesh's house to Malleshwaram in his vehicle, when he was passing through Mahalakshmi Layout, a car came from behind and dashed his car. When he stepped out of the car to check if there were any damages, three people asked him to come and check if something had happened to the front portion of his car. At that time, one person held him tightly from behind and tried to make him sit inside the car. A person sitting in the driver seat had kept the car on and remaining 5-6 people hit the informant and tried to push him inside the car and the informant objected to this and fought back and when they failed to push the informant inside the car, he fell on the road and started shouting and at this point of time, when the public started gathering, the miscreants pushed him outside the car and fled away. Based on the complaint, the police have registered Crime No.163/2017. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet, which is numbered as C.C.No.27590/2017 and thereafter the matter was committed to the Sessions Court and the same is numbered as S.C.No.306/2018.

(3.) The petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused No.1 in this petition, mainly contend that there is no specific overt-act attributed against him. It is also his case that there is no material against the petitioner that he involved in the commission of the offence. It is also contended that the learned Sessions Judge, without application of mind to the allegations in the charge-sheet, both original and supplementary, without recording any satisfaction as to whether any case is made out by the prosecution against the petitioner, in a mechanical manner, taken cognizance twice, which is bad in law, impermissible and unsustainable. It is also contended that there are no allegations in the complaint against the petitioner and even in 161 statement of the witnesses. It is contended that the witnesses, who remotely mentioned the name of the petitioner also are not direct witnesses, but in the nature of alleged hear-say witnesses, whose evidence will not render any support to the prosecution. It is also contended that further investigation was conducted without obtaining the permission of the learned Magistrate. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.