KEMANNA S/O VALAPPA CHAVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this court contending that they have been falsely implicated in a case which has no substance.

(2.) The facts as narrated in the complaint are that the brother of the complainant one Mallappa had three daughters. It is alleged that Mallappa had tried to flirt with the wife of Accused No.1 by calling her up on her cellphone. This having been brought to the attention of Accused No.1, he along with the present petitioners is said to have come to the house of the complainant's brother Mallappa and had tried to assault him. Mallappa and his wife managed to get into their house and had bolted the door from inside. Thereafter, other villagers having been alerted by the commotion, had come and tried to intervene and had sent away the accused. It is thereafter that Mallappa and his wife were repeatedly persuaded to come out of their house, but they did not. Finally, the door was opened and it was found that Mallappa had died after consuming poison and Mallappa's wife was not in a position to speak. She was admitted to hospital and later revived. In this background, a case has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 306 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After further proceedings, they have now been charge -sheeted. It is in this background that the petitioners claim that they were in no way involved in causing the alleged death of Mallappa and there was no indication of any injuries having been caused. Therefore, in the absence of any allegations of overt act against the present petitioners, the entire case of the prosecution would have to fail and therefore seek quashing of the proceedings as against these petitioners who had nothing to do with the incident and merely because they were related to Accused No.1, they have been roped in as the accused.

(3.) In the above background, it would be possible for the petitioners to urge the very same contentions as urged herein in seeking discharge at the appropriate time before the Trial Court itself. In that view of the matter, there is no warrant for this court to address the merits of the case in minute detail in ascertaining whether the petitioners could be entitled to such discharge. Accordingly, the petition is misconceived and is premature, since the petitioners are armed with a remedy before the Trial Court itself. The present petition is disposed of without prejudice to the case of the petitioners in seeking discharge at the appropriate time before the Trial Court.