- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38046 CRL.P No. 10313 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10313 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. JAYANTH V GOWDA SON OF VIJAYA SATYA SAI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 305, 9TH CROSS, MANDYA TOWN, MANDYA-571401 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY BILIKERE POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT-570023 REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSCEUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. JAYAPRAKASH D B AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BILIKERE POLICE STATION HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU, KARNATAKA.570023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 V/O/DT:18.08.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38046 CRL.P No. 10313 of 2025 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE FIR NO.37/2021 AND PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.193/2021, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR AGAINST THE PETITIONER, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 307, 353, 332 OF IPC, 1860. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petitioner is filed by accused No.1 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in S.C.No.193/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1, has been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences on the allegation that while he was being escorted by the police in a vehicle during transit, he attempted to assault the complainant–police officer with a wooden stick. Despite repeated warnings issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner allegedly continued his aggressive conduct and attacked the complainant with the said stick. It is further alleged that under compelling circumstances, respondent No.2, who is the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38046 CRL.P No. 10313 of 2025 Investigating Officer, was constrained to open fire, resulting in a gunshot injury to the petitioner’s right knee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contends that the entire episode has been falsely projected by the police to justify the unlawful firing at the petitioner. It is submitted that in order to cover up the high-handed and excessive use of force by respondent No.2, a false complaint was subsequently lodged, culminating in registration of the present case and filing of the charge sheet. Referring to the wound certificate, learned counsel argues that the prosecution narrative is highly exaggerated and intended to portray the petitioner as the aggressor. He submits that the petitioner had extended full cooperation during the escort, and it was respondent No.2 who, without provocation, fired at the petitioner’s right knee, and thereafter, a concocted case was set up to shield the officer’s misconduct. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter with a long criminal history, and that he is already facing trial in two separate murder cases. It is contended that, on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner had turned violent and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38046 CRL.P No. 10313 of 2025 attempted to assault the police personnel, thereby compelling respondent No.2 to open fire purely as a measure of deterrence and self-protection. It is emphasized that there was no mala fide intent in the act of firing, and the same was necessitated in the discharge of official duty. 5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on both sides and perused the charge-sheet records. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that even if the charge-sheet materials are accepted on their face value, the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is not made out. This contention, however, cannot be accepted at this stage. 6. To attract an offence under Section 307 IPC, what is required to be established is that the act was done with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that if death had ensued, the act would amount to murder. The nature of injury caused, though a relevant factor, is not the sole criterion to determine whether the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are satisfied. Therefore, the petitioner’s argument that the injuries sustained by the complainant are not grievous and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38046 CRL.P No. 10313 of 2025 hence the charge under Section 307 IPC cannot stand, is untenable at this juncture. 7. Whether the petitioner did, in fact, use a wooden stick to assault the police officials, and whether such act was accompanied by the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death, are questions of fact that can only be adjudicated upon after a full-fledged trial. 8. Since the charges have already been framed, the petitioner’s plea that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted cannot be examined in detail in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, the petitioner is at liberty to demonstrate during the course of trial that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. It is also pertinent to note that Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers the trial Court to alter or amend the charges at any stage prior to pronouncement of judgment, if the evidence so warrants. 9. The contentions raised by the petitioner, including the allegation that the firing incident was an attempt to cover up the illegal conduct of the officer, are matters that require appreciation of evidence. Such disputed factual aspects cannot be adjudicated at this stage. These contentions can very well - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38046 CRL.P No. 10313 of 2025 be advanced before the trial Court during the course of evidence. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the charge sheet or to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23