NAMIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No. 116 of 2008 registered by the Birur Police for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 392, 354 and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant in her complaint has stated that the accused 1, 2, 3 came to the school premises along with a tractor bearing No. KA 18-T-4051 and started ploughing the land and there was some altercation between the complainant and the petitioners/accused, when the complainant started taking the photographs of the act of ploughing the land by the accused through the camera on her mobile, accused snatched the mobile and threw away the same and also used abusing language.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused was not at all in town when the incident in question had taken place. On that day, the accused was travelling to Kadur and he has produced material document i.e., bus ticket.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 392 is not attracted adjudication. The complaint shows that the accused have snatched the mobile, which does not comes within the purview of Section 392. Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the scope of enquiry is limited. Whether the accused was present or not is matter of evidence that the petitioner can prove it in trial. It is open for the petitioner to produce the evidence at the time of trial or it is also open for him to seek for discharge if the charges are not framed, where he can raise all relevant contentions. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed.