Shri Basappa, Smt. Adivevva, Smt. Shankravva and Smt. Chennavva vs Smt. Rajeshwari Suresh Dangroji and The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. SPP for the second respondent-State. Perused the records. These petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. to 5 in CC No. 84/2012 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.),. Shiggaon. The complainant-respondent No. 1 herein filed a complaint against all the petitioners alleging harassment, ill-treatment and cruel treatment at the hands of the petitioners herein. The Police have filed the charge sheet against the accused persons and sent them for trial. On the basis of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, registered a case against the accused persons. In fact, the accused persons have appeared before the trial Court. At the initial stage itself, they were enlarged on bail. The records reveal that on 25.7.2013, the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties with regard to the framing of charges, found sufficient materials to frame charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the case is set down for evidence. The court also issued summons for the appearance of CWs. 1 to 3. The order sheet dated 2.9.2013 and 16.11.2013 disclose that CW1 was present before the court and the accused persons have prayed time stating that there is likelihood of settlement in the case. Like that way, the matter got adjourned. The order sheet also discloses that on several occasions A1 to A5 were remained absent, exemption applications filed and the trial Court has taken lenient view by allowing those applications.

At this juncture, the present petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings before the court below. There are specific allegations made in the charge sheet against the accused persons and when the matter is set down for evidence, this Court cannot exercise power u/s. 482, of Cr.P.C., unless the evidence on record shows that the charge sheet filed against the accused persons is baseless.

Further, added to that, as I have already narrated above and on going through the entire material in the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has framed the charges holding that, there are sufficient materials to try them before the court i.e. why the case is set down for evidence.

It is worth to note here, the guidelines issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has categorically said at paragraph 27.13, page 483, that-

Quashing of a charge is an exception to the Rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

(Emphasis supplied)

When there is prima facie material found by the learned Magistrate to put the accused persons on trial, it is not proper on the part of this court to interfere. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. In view of the dismissal of the petition, the pending IA No. 1/2013 does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.