MANJUNATHA DEVARU BHAT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition filed by petitioners/accused under Sec. 482 of the Crimial P.C. praying the Court to quash the complaint, FIR and charge sheet produced as per Annexures-A, B and C respectively and all further proceedings in Honnavar Police Crime No. 287/2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 353, 332, 307 and 120B r/w Sec. 149 of Penal Code on the file of J.M.F.C., Honnavar, in the interest of justice and equity.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners that one Ashok R. Bhat, the then Range Forest Officer working at Honnavar against whom there were certain allegations to the Forest Minister, mainly that the said officer is mingled with the offenders in illegally cutting the forest trees and transporting them. Based on the said allegations, Ashok R. Bhat was suspended on 19.06.2006. So also there were certain Nilgiri and Rain trees cut and instead of transporting the same to the Government Timber Yard, the said officer had transported or misappropriated them illegally for personal gains for which on an enquiry he was found guilty and he was made to pay an amount of Rs. 47,348.00 to the Government. These being the facts, the said Ashok R. Bhat suspected that petitioner No. 1 has caused those serious allegations against him and was waiting for to take revenge and when petitioner No. 1 herein had suffered major accident in which his left leg was fractured on 13.09.2011, who has undergone a major surgery at that time, misusing his official position and powers and acting in collusion with his supporting RFO namely Veerappa Gouda and Honnavar Police, concocted, created and hatched criminal cases to be filed initially against the petitioner No. 1 and subsequently implicating his family members. The further averments that in fact it was Ashok R. Bhat, ACF and his officers, who had assaulted the petitioner mercilessly though he was bedridden and unable to move at all. The allegations in the complaint are false and the very investigation is tainted and biased as such complaint, FIR and the charge-sheet are clear abuse of judicial process and they are to be quashed.

(3.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader for the respondent/State.