Reserved on : 15.01.2025 Pronounced on : 07.02.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 25864 OF 2024(GM-RES) BETWEEN: GURUPRASANNA RAO S/O. LATE ESHWARA CHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT SALETHURU MANE, KOLNADU GRAMA, BANTWALA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA, PIN CODE – 574 323. … PETITIONERS (BY SMT. YUKTHA N. AND SRI ANUSH N., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF PUTTUR POLICE STATION, KODIPPAD VILLAGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HCGP BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. K. ABDUL KADAR S/O. AHAMAD KUIE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT KALANDHADKA MANNE, KODIPADI GRAMA, PUTTUR TALUK, PUTTUR – 574 220. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1) VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION R/W SEC 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN S.C NO. 5002/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN RESULTANT THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 125/2019 OF PUTTUR TOWN P.S FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC 120(B) AND SEC 34 OF IPC 1860 ARRAIGNING THE PRESENT PETITIONER AS THE ACCUSED NO. 5 PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE PUTTUR AT D.K (VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B) AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.01.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER The petitioner-accused No.5 is at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.5002 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Smt Yuktha N and Anush N, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jagadeesh B N, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: It is the case of the prosecution that on 26-11-2019 at 6.30 p.m., all the accused come together in a restaurant and hatch a conspiracy to finish off the complainant. The hatching of conspiracy leads to the execution of the act. Execution of the act leads to injuries to the complainant. The petitioner was not named as an accused at the time of commission of the offence. The police conduct investigation, records statements of the witnesses and then come to conclude, on the basis of certain statements made by the co-accused, that the petitioner is also involved in the crime. The police then file a charge sheet for the afore-quoted offences and insofar as the petitioner is concerned arraign him as accused No.5 and hold him to be a part of the conspiracy as obtaining under Section 120B of the IPC. Since the offence involved against others was punishable under Sections 447, 307 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. As observed hereinabove, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, what has drawn him into the web of the proceedings is hatching of a conspiracy. On committal to the Court of Session and registration of S.C.No.5002 of 2023, the petitioner-accused No.5 is before this Court, calling in question the taking of cognizance against the petitioner and the order of committal. 4. The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except the voluntary statement of accused No.1, there is no other material to corroborate the role of the petitioner in the commission of the crime. He would contend that the drawing up of the petitioner into the web of crime is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as there can be no trial against a person only on the voluntary statement of other accused. 5. Per-contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B. N. Jagadeesh would vehemently refute the submission to contend that investigation led to clear role of the petitioner as being part of the conspiracy. It is not only the statement of accused No.1, but there is abundant material at the hands of the prosecution with regard to the role of the petitioner. He would therefore, submit that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean, as Section 27 of the Evidence Act protects those cases where the accused are drawn into the web of proceedings on account of voluntary statements, but they are corroborated with other evidence. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26-11-2019 at 6.30 p.m. the 2nd respondent/complainant who is the resident of Kodiwadi village was in his house. A car stops in front of the house and when he goes near the car, he noticed accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the car, at that time, accused No.1 shot the complainant twice with an intent to kill him with his pistol resulting in grave injury to the complainant, on his left chest and blood injury to the right eye. He was treated at the hospital. The reason for the said incident was said to be the dispute between the complainant and one Kore Umar regarding compromise of a particular case. Based upon the said incident, a complaint comes to be registered on 26-11-2019 which becomes a crime in Crime No.125 of 2019 initially for offences punishable under Sections 447, 307 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. 8. It transpires that a split charge was drawn and against accused Nos.3 and 6 the offences under the Indian Arms Act were dropped. As observed hereinabove, the petitioner was later drawn into the charge sheet as accused No.5. The offences had a different colour while filing the charge sheet. The charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 447, 326, 324, 307, 120B, 109 and 201 of the IPC as against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, accused Nos.4 and 5 are charge sheeted for the offence under Section 120B and 34 of the IPC and accused No.6 is charge sheeted for the offence under Section 109 of the IPC and Sections 3(1) and 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the aforesaid offences and commits the matter to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court later, registers S.C.No.5002 of 2023. 9. The issue now would be, whether the petition should be entertained on the solitary score that there is no evidence against the petitioner, except the statement of accused No.1? 10. It therefore becomes necessary to notice the statement of the complainant on the date of commission of the offence, it reads as follows: “ೇೆ :- ೆ.ಅಬು ಾದ, ಾಯ 36 ವಷ, ತಂೆ 1 ಅಹಮ#$ ಕುಂಞ, 'ಾಸ : ಕಲ*ಂದಡ, ಮ-ೆ, ೊ/ಾ0/ 1ಾಮ, ಪ3ತೂ4ರು 6ಾಲೂಕು 7.ನಂ.9482834320 9-ಾಂಕಃ: 26-11-2019, -ಾನು ;ೕ<ಾ,=>ದ ?@ಾಸದA* ತಂೆ ಅಹಮ#$ ಕುಂಞ, ಪBC DೕಮB ಇFಾ-ಾ.ಎಂ.ಎ. ತಮ# ಅಬೂಲಕ, ಮತು4 ಮಕ,@ೆHಂ91ೆ 'ಾಸ'ಾIದು, ನನ1ೆ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀÈwÛAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ಈ 9ನ 9-ಾಂಕಃ 26-11-19 ರಂದು -ಾನು ಹ@ೇ ?ಾKLAiÀiÁVzÀÝ ಕ§ಕ ಸರಾM ಪದ? ಪNವ ಾ<ೇOನ ಸೂ, Pೇ ಾಯಕಮದA* ಹ@ೇ ?ಾKL ಸಂಘದ ಖSಾಂTUಾI ಾ<ೊVಂಡು ಮWಾKಹCದ ಊಟವನುC Zಾ<ೆಯA*[ೕ ಮುI>ೆ ಸಂSೆ ಸು\ಾರು 5-00 ಗಂ^ೆ1ೆ ಮ-ೆ ಕPೆ1ೆ ೊರಡು6ಾ4 ಾ<ೇOನ ಹB4ರ?ರುವ >_`#ಂa ಪN ನA* bಾCನ \ಾ/ ಅA*ಂದ 7ೕ^ಾರು bೈಕ ನA* ಮ-ೆ ಕPೆ1ೆ ೊರಡು'ಾಗ ಸಂSೆ 5.45 ಗಂ^ೆ1ೆ ನನC bೆCೕfತ ಮ-ೆ ಹB4ರ ಅಬು ಹ`ೕ$ ಮ-ೆ1ೆ gೕh \ಾ/ iನC ಮ-ೆಯ ಬ ಅಪMTತ ಾರು ಒಂದು ಸು6ಾ4ಡುB4ೆ. ಆ ಾರು ೋlೆ ಉಮ# ರವರ ಮ-ೆ ಕPೆ1ೆ ೋIರುತ4ೆ ಎಂದು B>ದನು. ಆ ಬಕ -ಾನು ನನC ಮ-ೆ1ೆ ಬಂದು ಮಕ,1ೆ Bಂ/ ಾn ೊಟುo ಮ-ೆಯA*ರುವ ಸಮಯ bೆCೕfತ ಅಬು ಹ`ೕ$ 'ಾಪಸು ನನ1ೆ pೕh \ಾ/ ಆ ಾರು 'ಾಪಸು iನC ಮ-ೆ ಕPೆ1ೆ ಬರುB4ೆ ಎಂದು B>ದನು. ನಮ# ಮ-ೆಯA* ಈ 9ನ lಾB ಹರೆ ಾಯಕಮ ಇದುದMಂದ ನನC ಮ-ೆಯA* ತಂI ರಹಮq, ಅಣs ಸು<ೈ\ಾh ರವರ ಪBC ನ>ೕ\ಾ, ಅಣsನ ಮಗ tಾ>ೕq ರವರು ಇದರು. ಾಯಕಮ ಇದ ಾರಣ ಮ-ೆ ಸುತ4 ?ದುKq uೆಳಕು ಾwದರು fೕIರು6ಾ4 ಸಂSೆ ಸಮಯ ಸು\ಾರು 6-30 ಗಂ^ೆ ಸಮಯೆ, bೆCೕfತ ಅಬು ಹ`ೕ$ B>ದ ಅಪMTತ y ಬಣsದ ಇಂ/ಾ ಾlೊಂದು ಉಮ# ರವರ ಮ-ೆಯ ಕPೆzಂದ ಬಂದು -ೇರ'ಾI ನನC ಮ-ೆಯ ಅಂಗಳೆ ಬಂದು BರುI \ಾಗದ ಕPೆ1ೆ ಮುಖ \ಾ/ iಂBತು. ಸ9 ಾMನ 1ಾ*{ ಪNB uಾ*| ^ೆಂ} ಇದುದMಂದ ಾMನA*ರುವವರು Uಾlೆಂದು BಯAಲ* ಾMನ ಬ1ೆ ೋೆನು. ಆ ಸಮಯ ಾMನ ಮುಂ9ನ ಎಡಬ9ಯ 1ಾ*{ 6ೆlೆzತು. ಾMನ tಾಲಕ >ೕ~ನA* bಾ•ೕ| Uಾ-ೆ ¨ÉèÀ bಾ•| ಇದು ಪಕ,ದ >ೕ~ನA* ಪMಚಯದ ಶ`ೕ Uಾ-ೆ ಚ`# Uಾ-ೆ Pೆ/* ಎಂuಾತ ಇದನು. fಂ9ನ >ೕ~ನA* ನನ1ೆ -ೋ/ ಪMಚಯ?ರುವ ಇವರು ಮತು4 ಹiೕƒ ಎಂಬುವರು ಇದರು. tಾಲಕನ >ೕ~ನA* ಕುBದ bಾ•ೕ| Uಾ-ೆ ¨ÉèÀ bಾ•ೕ| ಏಾಏw ಾMನ ಎಡಬ9ಯ wಟwಯ ಬ9ಯA* iಂBದ ನನC ಎೆ1ೆ …ಸೂ4Aiಂದ ಗುಂಡು ಾM>ದನು. ಾ1ೆ ಾM>ದ ಗುಂಡು ನನC ಎಡ ಬ9ಯ ಎೆ1ೆ 6ಾIತು. ಆಗ -ಾನು tಾಲಕನ ಪಕ,ದ >ೕ~ನA* ಕುBದ ಶ`ೕ Uಾ-ೆ ಚ`#ಯ ~ೕ ಶಟನುC f/ದುೊಂPೆನು. ಅಷoರA* bಾ•ೕ| ನು ಮ6ೊ4ಂದು ಸುತು4 ಗುಂಡನುC ನನCತ4 ಾM>ದು ಅದು ನನC ಬಲ ಕ=sನ ಬ91ೆ 6ಾIತು. ಆಗ -ಾನು f/ದುೊಂ/ದ ಶ`ೕ Uಾ-ೆ ಚ`#ಯ ~ೕ ಶಟನುC yಟುo ಬ91ೆ ಸMಯುB4ದಂ6ೆ[ೕ ಾರು 'ೇಗ'ಾI ನಮ# ಮ-ೆಯಂಗಳ9ಂದ ೊ/ಾ0/ೕ ಕPೆ1ೆ ೊರಟು ೋzತು. ಆಗ ಾMನ ನಂಬವನುC -ೋ/ದು ಅದು ಎಂ.ೆ†.-12-ಎƒ.ಜ€ 1069 ಆIತು4. ಈ ಘಟ-ೆಯನುC -ೋ/ದ ಅA*ದ ನನC ಪBC, ತಂI, ಅಣsನ ೆಂಡB, ಅಣsನ ಮಗ 1ಾಬM1ೊಂಡು uೊuೆŠ ಾwದರು. ಆ ಬಕ -ಾನು ನನC ಾMನA* -ಾ-ೇ tಾಲಕ-ಾI, ಪಕ,ದ >ೕ~ನA* ಅಣsನ ಮಗ uಾ>ೕತನನುC ಕುಳ‹M> ೊಂಡು ಕ®ಕೆ, ಬಂೆನು. ಬರು6ಾ4 ನಮ# ಅಬೂಬŠಕ, i1ೆ gೕh \ಾ/ ಘಟ-ೆ ?tಾರ B>ದು ಆತನು ಕಬಕದA*ದು ಅA*ಂದ ನನ1ಾದ 1ಾಯದ Tw6ೆŒಯ ಬ1ೆV ೋಗು6ಾ4 tಾಲಕ-ಾI ತಮ# ಅಬೂಬŠಕ, ನು ಕುತನು. -ಾನು fಂ9ನ >ೕ~ನA* ಕುತು ಪ3ತೂ4ರು ಪಗB ಆಸ06ೆ1ೆ ಬಂೆವ3. ಅA* 'ೈದKರು ನನ1ಾದ 1ಾಯವನುC -ೋ/ ಕೂಡ<ೇ ಮಂಗಳHರು ಆಸ06ೆ1ೆ ಕlೆದುೊಂಡು ೋಗುವಂ6ೆ B>ದರು. ಅದರಂ6ೆ ಅA*ಂದ ನನC •ಾವ >lಾŽ ರವರ ಾMನA* ಮಂಗಳHMನ ಇಂ/ಯ-ಾ ಆಸ06ೆ1ೆ ಬಂದು ಾಖ<ಾIದು Tw6ೆŒ iೕ/ದ 'ೈದKರು ಶಸ• Tw6ೆŒ1ಾI ನನCನುC ಒಳlೋIಯ-ಾCI ಾಖಲು \ಾ/ೊಂ/ರು6ಾ4lೆ. ನನಗೂ ಕಲ*ಂದqÀÌ 'ಾ> ೋlೆ ಉಮ# ರವMಗೂ ಕ@ೆದ ೆಲವ3 ವಷಗಂದ ೋlೆ ?tಾರದA* ತಕlಾರು ಇದು, ಅೇ ?tಾರೆ, ಸಂಬಂ•>ದಂ6ೆ ಈಗ ಎರಡು ವಷಗಳ fಂೆ ತಕlಾರು ನPೆದು ನನ1ೆ ೊ<ೆ ಯತC ನPೆ>ದ ಉಮ# ಕಲ*ಂದqÀÌ bಾ•ೕ| Uಾ-ೆ ¨ÉèÀ bಾ•ೕ| ಮತು4 ಇತರರ ?ರುದ ದೂರು iೕ/ದು, ಪಕರಣವ3 -ಾKUಾಲಯದA* ?tಾರ•ೆಯA*ರುತ4ೆ. ಆ ಬಕ ಆlೋ…ಗಳ‘ ನನC ?ರುದ ೆ_ೕಷ bಾ•ಸು6ಾ4 ಬಂ9ದು, ನನCನುC ೊ<ೆ \ಾಡುವ ಉೇಶವನುC ೊಂ9ದರು ಮತು4 ಈ ?tಾರವನುC ಹ`ೕ$ \ೌಲ ರವರA* ೇ{ lಾO \ಾಡುವಂ6ೆ B>ದು, ಅವ6ೆ4 -ಾನು ಆ“ೇ…>ೇ-ೆ. ಇದMಂದ ಆlೋ…ಗಳ‘ ಮತ4ಷುo ೆ_ೕಷ ೊಂ9ದು 9-ಾಂಕಃ 24-11-19 ರಂದು ಮWಾKಹCದ 'ೇ@ೆ1ೆ ನನ1ೆ ಾಣ>w,ದ ಆlೋ… ಶ`ೕ Uಾ-ೆ ಚ`# ಎಂuಾತನು ನನCನುCೇD> ನನCA* ೆ_ೕಷ9ಂದ ಎರಡು 9ವಸದA* iನCನುC ಮುIಸು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ ಎಂದು uೆದM> ೋIದನು. ಈ MೕB ೆ_ೕಷ1ೊಂಡ ಆlೋ…ಗಳ‘ ಈ 9ನ ನನ1ೆ ಗುಂಡು ಾM> ೊ<ೆ1ೆ ಪಯBC>ದು ಆlೋ…ಗಳ ?ರುದ” ಸೂಕ4 ಾನೂನು ಕಮ ಜರುIಸ uೇಾI ೇೊಳ‘‹6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ.” ಓದ<ಾI ಸMzೆ. ಸf/- The police, on filing of the charge sheet has drawn the petitioner as accused No.5. The role of each of the accused is found in the charge sheet, summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows: “17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ «ªÀgÀ: ಈ ೋ˜ಾlೋಪಣ ಪತದ ಾಲಂ ನಂಬ 12ರ°è ೆಸರು ?@ಾಸ ನಮೂ9>ದ ಆlೋ…ತರ ªÉÄð£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÉÄãÉAzÀgÉ 1£Éà DgÉÆævÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ.¸Á. 1£Éà AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV d°è PÀ®Äè ವKವಾರವನುC ನPೆ>ೊಂಡು ಬರುB4ದವlೊಳ1ೆ ವKವಾರದ ೈgೕ~ ನPೆದು ಅೇ ?tಾರದA tಾ.bಾ. 1-ೇಯವರ ;ೕ<ೆ ೆ_ೕಷವನುC ೊಂ9ದ 1-ೇ ಆlೋ…ತನು ತನC ಸಹಚರlೊಂ91ೆ bೇMೊಂಡು ಸು\ಾರು 2 ವಷಗಳ fಂೆ ಕಬಕ 1ಾಮದ ಕಬಕ ಎಂಬA* ತನC ವKವಾರೆ, ಅ/™ಪ/ಸುB4ದ tಾ.bಾ. 1-ೇಯವM1ೆ \ಾರಾಯುಧ9ಂದ ಹ¯Éè ನPೆ> ೊ<ೆ \ಾಡಲು ಪಯBC>ದು, ಈ ಬ1ೆV ಾಖ<ಾದ ಪಕರಣವ3 ?tಾರ•ೆಯA*ದು ಸÀ¢æ ಪಕರಣವನುC lಾOಯA* ಮುಾ4ಯ1ೊಸುವಂ6ೆ tಾ.bಾ. 1-ೇಯವM1ೆ ಆlೋ… 1-ೇಯವರು ಒ6ಾ4z>ಾಗ tಾ.bಾ. 1-ೇಯವರು ilಾಕM>ದು ಈ ?tಾರವನುC ಸಹಚರlಾದ ಆlೋ… 2,3, 4,5 ರವlೊಂ91ೆ ಚT> ?ೇಶದA*ರುವ ಆlೋ… 6-ೇಯವರA* B>ಾಗ 6ಾನು ಈ 7ದಲು iೕ/ದ …ಸೂ4ಲನುC ಬಳ>ೊಂಡು ಅಬು ಾದ ನನುC ಮುI>yಡು ೇಸು ಆದlೆ ಖT1ೆ ಹಣ ೊಡು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ ಎಂಬುಾI iೕ/ದ ದು˜ೆ›ೕರ•ೆಯಂ6ೆ 9-ಾಂಕ 26.11.2019 ರಂದು 1-ೇ ಆlೋ…ತನು ಇತರ ಆlೋ…ತlಾದ 2 , 3 4, 5 ರವlೊಂ91ೆ ತœೕರು ನPೆಸುವ ಸ\ಾನ ಉೇಶ9ಂದ ?ಟ* ೇ^ೆಯA,ರುವ Dೕ bಾz ^ೌh wಚh ಾK`A lೆbೊoೕlೆಂ} ನA* ಒಟುo bೇM tಾ.bಾ. 1-ೇಯವರನುC ೊ<ೆ \ಾ/ ಮುIಸುವ ಬ1ೆV ಅಪlಾ•ಕ ಒಳಸಂಚು ನPೆ> ಆlೋ… 6-ೇಯವನು ?ೇಶೆ, ೋಗುವ 'ೇ@ೆ ಆlೋ… 1-ೇಯವM1ೆ iೕ/ದ -ಾಡ i`ತ …ಸೂ4 ಮತು4 ಮೂರು ಸOೕವ ಗುಂಡುಗ@ೆHಂ91ೆ ಾರು MH.12.FZ.1069 ರA* ಆlೋ… 1-ೇಯವರು 2 ಮತು4 3-ೇಯವlೊಂ91ೆ ಪ3ತೂ4ರು 6ಾಲೂಕು ೊ/ಾ0/ 1ಾಮದ PÀ®èAದಡ, ಎಂಬA*1ೆ ಬಂದು ಸಂSೆ ಸಮಯ ಸು\ಾರು 6.30 ಗಂ^ೆ1ೆ tಾ.bಾ. 1-ೇಯವರ ಮ-ೆಯ ಅಂಗಳೆ, ಾMನA* ಅಕಮ ಪ'ೇಶ \ಾ/ ಾMನ ಬ ಬಂದ tಾ.bಾ. 1-ೇಯವರ ;ೕ<ೆ 1-ೇ ಆlೋ…ತನು ತನCAದ ಅಕಮ -ಾಡ …ಸೂ4 iಂದ ಎರಡು uಾM ಗುಂಡು ಾM>ದ ಪM•ಾಮ tಾ.bಾ. 1-ೇಯವರ ಎೆಯ ಎಡ•ಾಗೆ, Bೕವ ಸ_ರೂಪದ 1ಾಯ ಮತು4 ಬಲಕ=sನ ಹುyŠನ •ಾಗೆ, bಾ\ಾನK ಸ_ರೂಪದ ರಕ41ಾಯವ3ಂಟು\ಾ/ tಾ.bಾ. 1-ೇಯವರನುC ೊ<ೆ \ಾಡಲು ಪಯBC>ರುವ3ಾIೆ. ಅಲ*ೆ ಆlೋ… 1-ೇಯವರು ಕೃತKವನುC ಮlೆ \ಾಚುವ ಉೇಶ9ಂದ 7ದಲು >/>ದ ಗುಂ/ನ Empty ೇಸನುC gAೕಸM1ೆ >ಗದಂ6ೆ ಎbೆದು bಾžŸ -ಾಶ \ಾ/ರುವ3ಾIೆ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ 1, 2, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÀ®A 447, 326, 326, 324, 307, 201, 120(À©) Sೊ6ೆ1ೆ 34 ಐ…> ಮತು4 ಆlೋ… 4 ಮತು4 5 -ೇಯವರು ಕಲಂ 120(y) Sೊ6ೆ1ೆ 34 ಐ…>ಯಂ6ೆ ಮತು4 6-ೇ ಆlೋ…ತರು ಕಲಂ 109 ಐ…> ಮತು4, ಕಲಂ 3(1), 25(1ಎ) •ಾರBೕಯ ಶbಾ•ಸ• ಾ[ 1959 ಯಂ6ೆ D“ಾಹlೆಂಬುಾI ೋ˜ಾlೋಪ•ಾ ಪತ.” The narration in the summary of the charge sheet is that accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 along with 4 and 5 with a common intention to do away the life of the complainant had hatched a conspiracy. The offences are grave, the role of the petitioner is not restricted to the voluntary statement of accused No.1. Insofar as the present petitioner and accused No.4 are concerned, it is restricted to Section 120B of the IPC. 11. The learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the voluntary statement of accused No.1. The statement reads as follows: “DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸Àé-EZÁÒ ºÉýPÉ ಹಸh bಾ•| @ bಾ•|, @ ¨ÉèÀ bಾ•|, ಾಯ 30 ವಷ, ತಂೆ; ಅuಾŠ{, ªÁ¸À: ೊಡಂ1ಾz ಮ-ೆ, ?lè. ಪqÀÆßರು 1ಾಮ, ಬಂ^ಾ_ಳ 6ಾಲೂಕು ಆದ -ಾನು Uಾವ3ೇ ಒತ4ಡ, ಭಯ, ಆ`ಷ ಇಲ*ೆ 9-ಾಂಕ 29-11-2019 ದಂzÀÄ iೕ/ದ ಸo-ಇ^ಾC ೇೆ. - - - -ಾನು ;ೕAನ ?@ಾಸದವ-ಾIರು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ. -ಾನು ಪಸು4ತ MUಾ ¥Áè-ೆ} ಎಂಬ ¥Áè}, ೆನlಾ uಾKಂ| ಹwÛರ, ಪ3ತೂ4ರು ರbೆ4, ?ಟ* ಎಂಬA* 'ಾಸ?ರು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ, ಈ ?@ಾಸದA*, ತಂೆ ಅuಾŠ{, 6ಾz ಕಮರು¤ßbಾ, ಪBC ಮMಯಮ# ರOೕನ, ಮತು4 ಇಬŠರು ಮಕ,ಳ Sೊ6ೆ ಾಗೂ ತಮ#ಂ9lಾದ ಮಹಮ#$ ಶw, ಮಹಮ#$ ಸ…, ತಂIಯಂ9lಾದ ಅA\ಾ, ನnೕ-ಾ ರವlೊಂ91ೆ 'ಾಸ'ಾIರು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ -ಾನು ?ಟಲ ಪದ? ಪNವ ಾ<ೇಜು, ?ಟ*ದA* ಎ{.ಎ{.ಎ.> ವlೆ1ೆ ?ಾK•ಾKಸವನುC \ಾ/ರು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ. ನನ1ೆ ಈಗ <ಾM tಾಲಕ ವKwÛ. ಈ ೈw ತಮ# ಮಹಮ#$ ಶwೕ ಮೂಡು1ೆlೆಯA* ೆಲಸ \ಾ/ೊಂ/ರು6ಾ4-ೆ. ಇ-ೊCಬŠ ತಮ# ಮಹಮ#$ ±ÀQ ªÀÄÆqÀÄUÉgÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É. E£ÉÆߧâ vÀªÀÄä ªÀĺÀªÀÄäzï ¸À¦üæ¯ï ನನC Sೊ6ೆ1ೆ ಇರು6ಾ4-ೆ. ನನC ?ರುದ” ಬಂ^ಾ_ಳ, ?ಟ*, ಪ3ತೂ4ರು ನಗರ ¦ಾ•ೆಗಳA* ಗ<ಾ^ೆ \ಾ/ದ ಬ1ೆV, uೇlೆ uೇlೆ ಪಕರಣಗಳ‘ ಾಖ<ಾI Sೈಲು 'ಾಸವನುC ಅನುಭ?>ರು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ. ಪಕರಣಗಳA... -ಾನು -ಾKUಾಲಯೆ, ಾಜlಾಗುB4ೇ-ೆ ?ಟ*, iೕಕSೆ 'ಾ> ಹiೕƒ @ SೋI ಹiೕƒ, ಉಕು,/ 'ಾ> 7ಹಮ#$ ಇ˜ಾ$, ಮಂಗಲಾ/ i'ಾ> ಪದ#-ಾಭ@ ಪದು, ಮಂSೇಶ_ರ i'ಾ> 7ಹಮ#$ ರnೕ| @ ¸À¥ÀàmÉ ರnೕ|, ಬಂ^ಾ_ಳದ iSಾ§ @ iಜªÀÄÄ¢Ýãï, bಾ<ೆತೂ4Mನ ಗುರು¥ÀæಸನC lಾ¨ ಾಗೂ ನನC ತಮ# ಮಹಮ#$ ಸ… ಇವlೆಲ*ರೂ ನನC ಸಹಚರlಾIರು6ಾ4lೆ. ನಮ# ಎಲ*ರ ;ೕ<ೆಯೂ Sೊ6ೆಯA* ಅಪlಾಧ \ಾ/ದ ಬ1ೆV, ಮತು4 uೇlೆ uೇlೆ ಅಪlಾಧ ಗಳ ಬ1ೆV ೊ<ೆ ಯತC, ೊ<ೆ1ೆ ಸಂಚು, ಗುಂಪ31ಾMೆ, ಮುಂ6ಾದವ3ಗಳA* •ಾIUಾದ ಬ1ೆV ಪಕರಣಗರುತ4ೆ. ಈ ೈw ನನC ಸಹಚರ 7ಹಮ#$ ರnೕPï @ ನಪ0^ೆ ರnೕ| ನು ಕ@ೆದ 8 Bಂಗಳ fಂೆ ?ೇಶೆ, ೋIರು6ಾ4-ೆ, ಆ ಸಮಯ ಆತನ ಬ ಇzÀÝ …ಸೂ4 ನುC ಮತು4 ಗುಂಡುಗಳನುC ಉಪªೕIಸುವಂ6ೆ ೇ ನನ1ೆ ೊ~oರು6ಾ4-ೆ. ಅದನುC -ಾನು ನನC ಬ ಇಟುoೊಳ‘‹B4ೆನು. ನನ1ೆ ಮದKಾನ \ಾಡುವ, >ಗlೇ} ಮತು4 1ಾಂSಾ bೇದುವ ದುlಾ•ಾKಸ?ರುತ4ೆ. -ಾನು ಈ fಂೆ ೊ/ಾ0/ 1ಾಮದ ಕ®èAದಡ 'ಾ> ೋlೆ ಉಮ# ರವರ ೋlೆಯA* ಅವರ <ಾM tಾಲಕ-ಾI ದು/ಯುB4ದನು. ಆ ಸಂದಭ ಅ¯Éèà ಹB4ರ?ರುವ uೇlೆ ೋlೆಗಳA* <ಾM tಾಲಕ-ಾI ೆಲಸ \ಾಡುB4ದ ೊ/ಾ0/ ಕ®èAದಡ, 'ಾ> ಅಬು ಾದ ಎಂuಾತನು ನಮ# ವKವಾರದA* ೋlೆzಂದ ಜA* bಾIಸುವ ಸಂದಭ IlಾwಗಳನುC ನ`#ಂದ ತ…0ಸುವ3ದು, ನಮ# ಧiಯವlಾದ ೋlೆ ಉಮ# ರವರು ಅಕಮ'ಾI ೋlೆ ನPೆಸು6ಾ4lೆ ಎಂದು ಗ= ಇ<ಾೆ1ೆ ದೂರು iೕ/ ಅವರ ಗ=1ಾMೆ ೆಲಸೆ, 6ೊಂದlೆ \ಾಡುB4ದನು. ಇದMಂದ ಅವರ ವKವಾರಕೂ,, 6ೊಂದlೆUಾI ನಮಗೂ ೆಲಸ?ಲ*ೆ 6ೊಂದlೆUಾಗುB4ತು4 ಈ ಬ1ೆV ನ7#ಳ1ೆ ೊಯೆ, ನPೆದು ೆ_ೕಷ uೆ@ೆ9ತು4. ಆ ಬಕ 2017ರA* -ಾನು ಕಬಕ ೇmÉಯA* ಅಬು ಾದ ;ೕ<ೆ ಹ<ೆ* ನPೆ>ದ ಬ1ೆV, ಅತ ನನC ?ರುದ” ೊ<ೆಯತC ೇಸು iೕ/ದು, ಪಕರಣ ?tಾರ•ೆಯA* ರುತ4ೆ. ಆ ಬಕ ಆತ ನನ1ೆ ಾಣ>QÌದ¯É<ಾ* ನನCನುC -ೋ/ ಗುlಾzಸುವ3ದು, ನನC ತಂ^ೆ1ೆ ಬಂದlೆ SೈA1ೆ ಕಳ‘fಸು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ. ಈ ಊM1ೆ uಾರದಂ6ೆ \ಾಡು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ ಎಂೆ<ಾ*, ೇ ಸ\ಾಜದA* ನನC ವಚ>Œ1ೆ ಧೆ, ಅಗುB4ತು4. ಮತು4 ನನ1ೆ ಸMUಾI ಹಣ ಸಂಾದ-ೆ \ಾಡಲು bಾಧK'ಾಗುB4ರAಲ*. ನನC ;ೕ<ೆ ಇರುವ ೇ>1ೆ ಹಣದ 6ೊಂದlೆ ಆಗುB4ತು4. ಇದMಂದ -ಾನು ಆ1ಾಗ Sೈಲು 'ಾಸವನುC ಅನುಭ?ಸuೇಾಗುB4ತು4. ಇದMಂದ ಅಬು ಾದ Sೊ6ೆ ೆ_ೕಷ uೆ@ೆ>ೊಂ/ದ -ಾನು ನನC ಸಹಚರರ Sೊ6ೆ \ಾತ-ಾಡುB4ಾಗ ಆತi1ೆ ಏ-ಾದರೂ \ಾ/ ನಮ# ತಂ^ೆ1ೆ uಾರದಂ6ೆ \ಾಡuೇಕು ಎಂದು ೇಳ‘B4ದನು. ಇೇ ?tಾರವನುC ?ೇಶದA*ರುವ bೆCೕfತ ಮಹಮ#$ ರnೕ| ಅAUಾ{ ಸಪ0^ೆ ರnೕ| Sೊ6ೆ ?/ªೕ ಾ \ಾ/ \ಾತ-ಾಡು'ಾಗ ೇೊಂPಾಗ ಆತನು -ಾನು iನ1ೆ ೊಟo …ಸೂ4 ಾಗೂ ಮೂರು ಮದು1ೊಂಡು iನC ಬ ಇೆಯಲ* ಆತನನುC ಮುI>yಡು iನC ;ೕ<ೆ ೇ{ ಆದlೆ ಅದರ ಖT1ೆ ಹಣ -ಾನು ೊಡು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ ೆದರuೇಡ ಎಂದು ನನ1ೆ gೕ6ಾŒf>ದನು. ಈ ಎ¯Áè ?tಾರವನುC ಸಹಚರlಾದ ಅiೕƒ ಅAUಾ{ SೋI ಹiƒ GPÀÌqÀ ªÁ¹ 7ಹªÀÄäzï EµÁðzï ¸Á¯ÉvÀÆÛj£À UÀÄgÀÄ¥Àæ¸À£Àß gÁªï, ನನC ತಮ# ಮಹಮ#$ ಸು…ೕ¯ï ರವರ Sೊ6ೆ \ಾತ-ಾಡುB4ಾಗ ಅವlೆಲ*ರೂ ನನC ಬ ಅಬು ಾದ ನಮ# ;ೕ<ೆ ಾwರುವ ೇಸನುC fಂದೆ, ಪPೆಯA -ಾವ3 lಾOೕ¨ \ಾPೋಣ ಈ ಬ1ೆV -ಾವ3 ಆತನA* ಒ;# \ಾತ-ಾPೋಣ ಅದೆ, ಒಪ09ದlೆ -ಾವ3 ಆತನನುC ಮುI>AiÉÄà yಡuೇಕು ಇಲ*ೆ ಇದlೆ ಮುಂದೆ, ನಮ1ೆ Oೕವನ ನPೆಸಲು bಾಧK?ಲ* ಆತನ ಉಪದ Sಾ>4 ಆಯು4 ಎಂೆಲ* ೇದರು ಅದರಂ6ೆ ೆಲವ3 9ವಸಗಳ fಂೆ ಅಬು ಾದ ಕಬಕದ ಹ`ೕ$ \ೌ<ಾರವರA* ೇಸು fಂದೆ, ಪPೆದು lಾf \ಾಡುವ ಬ1ೆV \ಾತ-ಾಡಲು B>ದು ಅವರು ಅಬು ಾದ ನA* \ಾತ-ಾ/ರು6ಾ4lೆ. ಆಗ ಅಬು ಾದ £ÀÄ ೇಸನುC fಂದೆ, ಪPೆದು lಾf \ಾ/ೊಳ‹ಲು ilಾಕM> ೇಸು fಂದೆ, ಪPೆಯುವ39ಲ* ಅವರ Sೊ6ೆ lಾOUಾಗಲು ಇಷo?ಲ*. ಅವನನುC ಮುಂದೆ, ಈ ಊM1ೆ ಬರಲು yಡುವ39ಲ*. iೕವ3 ಇನುC ಮುಂೆ ಅವನ ?tಾರದA* \ಾತ-ಾಡಲು ಬಂದlೆ iಮ#ನುC yಡುವ39ಲ* ಎಂದು uೆದMೆ ಾwದನು ಇದMಂದ ಹ6ಾಶ-ಾದ -ಾನು 9-ಾಂಕ: 26.11.2019 ವಂದ ನನC ಸಹಚರರ ¥ÉÊQ bಾ¯ÉvÀÆÛj£À UÀÄgÀÄ¥Àæ¸À£Àß gÁªï, ನನC ತಮ# ಮಹಮ#$ ಸ¦üæ¯ï, «lè ¤ÃPÀðeÉ ªÁ¹ ಹ¤Ã¥sï @ SೋI ಹ¤Ã¥sï, GPÀÄÌqÀ ªÁ¹ ªÀĺÀªÀÄäzï ಇ˜ಾ$ ರವರA*, ೇೊಂಡು , «lè ೇ^ೆಯA* ಒಂದು ಕPೆ Sೊ6ೆಯ°è ಕುತು C§Äݯï SÁzÀgï ನನುC ೊ<ೆ \ಾಡುವ ಬ1ೆV, ಾ*h \ಾ/ iಧM>ೆವ3. ಅದರಂ6ೆ ಮಹಮ#$ ರnೕ| @ ¸¸À¥ÀàmÉ ರnೕ| ನನCA* ೊ~oದ …ಸೂ, 1ೆ ಮೂರು ಗುಂಡಗಳನುC ತುಂy> >ದಪ/>ೊಂಡು ನನC bೊಂಟದA* Ej¹PÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ ಬಕ C§Äݯï ಾದ ನ ಬ1ೆV \ಾfB ಸಂಗfಸ<ಾI ಸಂSೆ 'ೇ@ೆ1ೆ ಆತನು ತನC ಮ-ೆಯ ಬ ಇರುವ3ಾI \ಾfB ಲಭK'ಾದ ಪಾರ ಮಹಮ#$ ಇ˜ಾ$ ನು ತಂ9ದ ಾರು MH 12-FZ- 1069-ೇದರ°è -ಾನು, ಮಹಮ#$ ಇ˜ಾ$ ಮತು4 ಹiೕƒ SೋI «lè.9ಂದ ಬಂದು ಕಲ*ಂದಡ, ಕPೆ1ೆ ೋI ಅಬು ಾದ ನ ಮ-ೆzಂದ ಸ_ಲ0 ಮುಂೆ ೋI ಆqÀØದ°è ಾದು ಕು6ೆವ3. ಸಂSೆ ಸು\ಾರು 6.30 ಗಂ^ೆ ಸಮಯೆ, -ಾವ3 ಒಂದ ಾMನ ಎ¯Áè UÁè{ ಗಳನುC ಮುT- -ಾವ3 ಇರುವ3ದನುC ಮlೆ\ಾTೊಂಡು ಾಯುB4ರುವ ಸಮಯ ಅಬು ಾದ ಆತನ 7ೕ^ಾರು bೈಕ ನ°è. ಮ-ೆ1ೆ ಬಂದು ಒ;# ಮ-ೆªಳ1ೆ ೋI 'ಾಾಸು ಬಂದು ಆತನ ಹ¼Éà ಮ-ೆಯ ಎದುರು ಏ-ೋ ೆಲಸ \ಾಡುB4ದನು. ಆಗ -ಾನು ಾರನುC ಆತನ ಮ-ೆಯ ಅಂಗಳೆ, ಚ<ಾz>ೊಂಡು ೋI BರುI> i°è> ಆತನ ಕPೆ1ೆ ಗುಂಡು ಾMಸಲು ಾMನ ಎಡಬ9ಯ ಮುಂ9ನ UÁèಸನುC ಇ> ಅ=UಾಗುB4ದಂ6ೆ[ೕ ಅಬು ಾದ ನಮ# ಾMನ ಬ ಬಂದು ನಮ#ನುC -ೋ/ದನು. ಆಗ -ಾನು ನನC ಬ ಇದ …ಸೂ4 iಂದ ಆತನ ಎೆಯ •ಾಗೆ,, ಗುಂಡು ಾM>ೆನು. ಆಗ ಆತನು ಾMನ ಮುಂ9ನ ಎಡಬ9 >ೕ~ನA* ಕುBದ ಇ˜ಾ$ ನ ಶಟನುC f/ದ@ೆದ£ÀÄ ಆಗ -ಾನು ಅಬು ಾದ ನ ತ<ೆ1ೆ ಗುMzಟುo ಇ-ೊCಂದು ಗುಂಡು ಾM>ೆನು. ಆಗ ಅಬು ಾದ ಆತನ ತ<ೆಯನುC ಎಡಬ91ೆ •ಾI>ದMಂದ ಆ ಗುಂಡು ಆತನ ಬಲಬ9 ಹ•ೆ ಬ1ೆ 6ಾIತು. -ಾನು ಎರಡ-ೇ uಾM ಾM>ದ ಗುಂ/ನ ಎಂ.~ ೇ{ …ಸೂ4 ನA*[ೕ >ಲುw Sಾ§ ಅIದMಂದ ಮ6ೆ4 ಗುಂಡು ಾMಸಲು ಆಗAಲ*. ಆ ಸಮಯ -ಾನು 1ಾಬMUಾI ಾರನುC ಅಂಗಳ9ಂದ 'ೇಗ'ಾI ಚ<ಾz>ೊಂಡು ೊ/ಾ0/ ರbೆ4ಯA*. ೋI ಮಂಜಲ0ಡು ಎಂಬA*1ೆ ತಲು… ಅA*ಂದ -ೆಹರೂನಗರ, ಾ<ೇಜು ರbೆ4, ಬನೂCರು ಜಂžh, ಪ/ೕಲು, -ಾಲ,ರ ರbೆ4, OPೆಕಲ* ಆI uೆಾಳದA* ಾ=ಯೂರು \ಾಗೆ, bೇM ಕಡಬೆ, ೋೆನು. 'ಾಾಸು ಅಲಂಾರು ಉ…0ನಂಗ/1ೆ ಬಂದು ಅA*ದ ಮಂಗಳHರು ಕPೆ1ೆ ೋಗು6ಾ4 ಕ'ೇಲು UËæA€ ಬ ಾರ£ÀÄß ¸Àé®à ºÉÆvÀÄÛ ¤°è¹zɪÀÅ.. ಆಗ ನಮ#ನುC gAೕಸರು ಹುಡುಕಬಹುದು ಎಂಬ ಭಯ9ಂದ uೆಂಗಳHರು ಕPೆ1ೆ ಾMನA* ೋಗ®Ä Bೕ\ಾi> ಅA*ಂದ ೊರಡಲು ಮುಂಾಾಗ ಾMನ ಮುಂ9ನ ಬಲಬ9ಯ ಟಯ ಪಂಚ ಆIತು4 ಅA*ಂದ ^ೈಯ ಪಂಚ ಾwಸಲು ^ೈಯ ಪಂಚ ಅಂಗ/ಯ ಕPೆ1ೆ ಾರನುC ಚ<ಾz>ೊಂಡು ೋI, ಮಂಗಳHರು - uೆಂಗಳHರು ೈ'ೇ ಬ9ಯA*ರುವ ಮಂಜು-ಾಥ ^ೈಯ ªÀPïìð ಅಂಗ/ಯA* ^ೈಯ ಸMಪ/ಸಲು ೇಾಗ ^ೈಯ ಒPೆ9ರುತ4ೆ ಈ ^ೈಯ ಪಂಚ ಆಗುವ39ಲ* ಎಂದು ಅಂಗ/Uಾತ B>ದು ಅಂಗ/ಯA* uೇlೆ ಹ@ೆಯ ^ೈಯ Eದlೆ ಾw ೊಡುವಂ6ೆ ೇzɪÀÅ. ಅದೆ, gÀÆ.700/- DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ B>ರು6ಾ4lೆ ಅA* -ಾವ3 ಾMನ ಬ iಂತುೊಂ/ಾಗ \ಾಗದA* ಉ…0ನಂಗ/ ಕPೆzಂದ gAೕ{ Oೕಪ3 ಬರುವ3ದನುC ಕಂಡು ೆದMದ -ಾವ3 ^ೈಯ ಅಂಗ/ಯ fಂಬ91ೆ ೋI ಅA*[ೕ 6ೋಟದ ಬ9ಯA* ಕುತುೊಂಡವ3. ಾ1ೆ ಬಂದ gAೕ{ Oೕಪ3 ^ೈಯ ªÀPïìð ಬ1ೆ ಬಂದು ಅA* iA*>ದ ನಮ# ಾರನುC ಪMDೕA> ಅಂಗ/ಯA* ?tಾMಸಲು ಾರಂ¯> ಅಂಗ/ಯ fಂ•ಾಗದA* ಬಂದು ಹುಡುಾಡಲು ಾರಂ¯>ದನುC ಕಂಡ -ಾವ3 ಪಕ,ದ ಗುಡ™ವನುC ಹB4 ೋೆವ3. ನಮ#ನುC ಎA*Uಾದರೂ gAೕಸರು f/ಾಗ ಅಥ'ಾ -ಾನು ಓಡು'ಾಗ ನನC ಬ ಇರುವ …ಸೂ4 ಎA*Uಾದರೂ yದು ೋಗಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಆ<ೋT>ದ -ಾನು ನನCA*ದ …ಸೂ4ಲನುC ನನ1ೆ ಮುಂದೆ, >ಗುವ MೕB ಸ°ಳವನುC ಗುರುತು \ಾ/ೊಂಡು ಒಂದು ಕPೆ ಬT-~oರು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ. ಆ ಬಕ -ಾವ3 ಮೂವರು uೆಳIನ SಾವದವM1ೆ ಗುಡ™ದA* ಅ?ತು ಕುತುೊಂPೆವ3 uೆಳIನ Sಾವ ಸು\ಾರು 6.30 ಗಂ^ೆ1ೆ ರbೆ4 ಕPೆ1ೆ ಬಂದು -ೋ/ದವ3 ಅA* Uಾರೂ gAೕಸರು ಇಲ*9ರುವ3ದನುC SÁತMಪ/>ೊಂಡು ಅA*ಂದ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï §APï §½ vÀ®Ä¦zÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉ EzÀÝ ºÀ¤Ã¥sï eÉÆÃV £Á£ÀÄ ¤ªÉÆäA¢UÉ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ £À£ÀßµÀÖPÉÌ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý C°èAzÀ ೊರಟು ೋದನು. -ಾನು ಮತು4 ಮಹಮ#$ EµÁðzï ಾಸI ಬ>ŒನA* ಮಂಗಳHM1ೆ ೋI ಅA*ಂದ ಸುರತ, , ಉಡು… ಸು6ಾ4/ ಅA*ಂದ 9-ಾಂಕ: 27.11.2019 ರಂದು ಉಡು…zಂದ uೆಂಗಳHM1ೆ ೋಗುವ ೆ.ಎ{.ಆgï.n.¹ ಬ>ŒನA* lಾB uೆಂಗಳHರು ತಲು… ಅA* ಉಳೊಂಡವ3, ಮರು9ನ 28.11. 2019 ರಂದು ನನC Sೊ6ೆ EµÁðzï £ÀÄ -ಾವ3 Sೊ6ೆ ಇದlೆ gAೕಸM1ೆ >w,ಾೊಳ‘‹6ೆ4ೕ'ೆ ಎಂದು ೇ uೇlೆUಾದನು. ಆಗ -ಾನು EµÁðzï UÉ gÀÆ. 500.00 ೊ~oರು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ, ಆ ಬಕ -ಾನು ಮ/ೇM1ೆ ಬಂದು ಅA* ಉಳೊಳ‘‹ವ ಉೇಶ9ಂದ ಮ/ೇMAiÀÄ ೆ iೕಡುಗuÉ ಎಂಬA*ರುವ ಮ»ÃAದ ಕ*± ಬ ೋI ೋಂ bೆoೕಯ ಕುMತು ?tಾMಸುB4ರುವ ಸಮಯ ಈ 9ನ 9-ಾಂಕ 29.11.2019 ರಂದು lಾB 7.30 ಗಂ^ೆ1ೆ ಪ3ತೂ4ರು ನಗರ gAೕ{ ¦ಾ•ೆಯ gAೕಸರು ನನCನುC ಸುತು4ವlೆದು f/ದುೊಂ/ರುವ3ಾIೆ, -ಾನು ಅಬು ಾದ ನನುC ನನC ಸಹಚರlೊಂ91ೆ bೇMೊಂಡು ೊ<ೆ \ಾಡಲು ಸಂಚುರೂ…> ಕೃvÀå J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ iಜ. ಅಬು ಾದ ನನುC ೊ<ೆ \ಾಡುವ ಉೇಶ9ಂದ ಾ*h \ಾ/ದ ಸ°ಳವನುC ಕೃತKೆ, ಉಪªೕI¹ದ ಾರನುC MೇM1ೆ ಇ~oರುವ ಪಂಚ ಅಂಗ/ಯನುC ಾಗೂ ಅಬು ಾದ ನ ;ೕ<ೆ ಗುಂಡು ಾM>ದ …ಸೂ4ಲನುC ಬT-~oರುವ ಸ°ಳವನುC ನ-ೊCಂ91ೆ ಬಂದlೆ 6ೋM>ೊಟುo ತ¤ೆ1ೆ ಸಹಕMಸು6ೆ4ೕ-ೆ. -ಾನು 7ದಲು >r¹zÀ ಗುಂ/ನ ಎಂ ~ ೇ{ ಾM-ೊಳ1ೆ y9ದನುC -ಾನು ºÉQÌ gAೕಸM1ೆ >ಗuಾರzÉAದು ಾMನA* ಪlಾM ಆಗುವ ಸಮಯ ಎA*ªೕ ಒಂದು ಕPೆ J¸É¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. J¸ÉzÀ eÁUÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉAzÀÄ RavÀªÁV £À£ÀUÉ ºÉüÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀ«®è. ಓದ<ಾI -ಾನು ೇದಂ6ೆ ಸMzೆ.” If the statement, the evidence and what is alleged against the petitioner as found in the summary of the charge sheet are noticed, it is not the case that there is no material against the petitioner. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are actively involved in hatching the conspiracy, as meeting of minds is clear in the case at hand. The matter is at the stage of framing of charges. Finding the issue being shrouded with maze of facts, entertainment of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at this stage, in the teeth of the aforesaid offences, would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1 wherein it is held as follows: “9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge- sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of 1 (2021) 9 SCC 35 Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove. 9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. 10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation. 11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only. 12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. 13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH supra and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, I do not find any ground to interfere with the proceedings. Finding no merit, the petition stands rejected. _________sd/-_________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA bkp CT-ASC