SHIVARAJ TANGADAGI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are knocking at the doors of this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction for the quashment of CC No.12285/2023 wherein the Charge Sheet has been filed by the jurisdictional Police after investigation. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioners presses into service the Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHOWDHARY BHAJAN LAL, AIR 1992 SC 604 for the quashment saying that even if entire charge sheet material is taken into consideration, the charges would not be able to be brought to him and therefore the entire proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court and of law.

(2.) Learned Addl. SPP on request accepting notice for both the Respondents vehemently opposes the Petition contending that it is open to the Petitioners to seek discharge under Sec. 229 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and they can move an Application in that regard, they can await hearing at the hands of the learned trial Judge whilst framing the charge, the Charge Sheet having been already filed; when such an efficacious remedy avails, ordinarily litigants cannot be allowed to tap the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. He also adds that in several other similar matters, this Court has relegated such persons to the trial Court for seeking discharge.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made by the learned Addl. SPP on behalf of Respondents. The Apex Court time and again has warned that tapping of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code cannot be as a matter of course and that, even if tapped, the jurisdiction shall be sparingly exercised. This Court is flooded with several such matters and in them already the track is beaten by relegating the litigants to the Trial Court with liberty to seek discharge. No special circumstances, despite vehement submissions are demonstrated as to why this Court should leave the beaten track and adopt a different procedure favourable to the litigants herein, no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners by going back to the trial Judge and seek discharge at his hand inasmuch as, in matters like this, this Court has directed the trial judges not to insist upon personal presence of the accused once the Application is filed for discharge and a final decision after hearing of all the concerned thereon is taken. That would mitigate hardship which otherwise could have occasioned to them.