Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38456 (KAR)

SIKANDAR S/O ABDULKHADAR ALIAS SAHJEBJAN SOUDAGAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/103807/2024 · 2025-07-17

Venkatesh Naik T

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8848 CRL.P No. 103807 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103807 OF 2024 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SIKANDAR S/O. ABDULKHADAR @ SAHJEBJAN SOUDAGAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. NARYAN DEVAR GUDI ONI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581110. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI SANTOSH D. NARGUND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH HANAGAL POLICE STATION, DIST. HAVERI-581110. 2. SMT. SHAKIRABHANU W/O. ABDULKARIM VANAKERI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. NARAYAN TEMPLE STREEET, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED IN SPL.SC.NO.82/2024, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, HAVERI, FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 126(2) AND 137(2) OF BNS 2023 AROSE FROM HANGAL P.S.CR.NO.204/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8848 CRL.P No. 103807 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Santosh D. Nargund, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 – State. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case No.82/2024 pending on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri, for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2) and 137 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8848 CRL.P No. 103807 of 2024 The de facto complainant lodged a complaint to the respondent – Police alleging that she was living with her husband and three children. Her daughter was studying in 10th standard at Al Hasnak School, Hangal and her age is 15 years 3 months. The petitioner – accused is neighbour of the de facto complainant and kept eye on the victim girl. On 31.07.2024, the victim had been to her school, as usual, but not returned from the school. Hence, complainant lodged a missing complaint to the respondent – Police. This led to registration of an FIR and initiation of the investigation. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed charge sheet and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Taking exception of the same, the petitioner – accused filed this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner – accused submits that the alleged incident took place on 31.07.2024. A complaint was lodged on 01.08.2024. Hence, there is delay in lodging the complaint and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8848 CRL.P No. 103807 of 2024 delay is not explained. Further, the learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there are no materials so as to connect this petitioner to the case. Further, the charge sheet material do not discloses the commission of alleged offences. Hence, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is without any substance. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed to allow the petition. 5. Learned HCGP contended that the charge sheet materials clearly disclose the commission of alleged offence. The veracity of allegation against the accused can be considered only after a full-fledged trial. Moreover, the present petition was filed at the stage, when the Court took cognizance and issued process, whereas, now the trial Court framed charges against the accused and the matter is set-down for trial. At this juncture, the petition is not maintainable and once charge is framed, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Hence, prayed for rejection of petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8848 CRL.P No. 103807 of 2024 6. Perused the materials available on record. The alleged offences took place on 31.07.2024 and the complaint was lodged on 1.08.2024. As per the contents of the charge sheet, the accused kidnapped the victim, took her to various places, sexually assaulted her in his car. This petition was filed on 17.12.2024. As per the order sheet maintained by the trial Court, the trial Court framed charges against the accused and the matter is set down for trial. This aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, framing of charges signifies that the Court, after perusing the charge sheet material, believes that there is sufficient reason to proceed with trial. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments held that once charges are framed and if the matter is set down for trial, Courts must slow in quashing the criminal proceedings filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, or the Court’s generally reluctant to interfere with the trial process after charges have been framed, unless there are - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8848 CRL.P No. 103807 of 2024 exceptional circumstances. In this case, the petitioner – accused has not shown any such exceptional circumstances so as to quash the entire proceedings. Further, in this case, the petitioner – accused is disputing the question of fact. This Court cannot delve into disputed question of facts, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Moreover, the Trial Court posted the matter for trial. Hence, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off, as it do not survive for any consideration. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Rsh ct-an List no.: 2 sl no.: 21