- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:213 CRL.P No. 103271 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103271 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRIKANTHA S/O SHANKARAPPA KONCHIGERI AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O ADUR, TQ. HANGAL DIST. HAVERI-581101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH ADUR POLICE, ADUR TQ. HANGAL AND DIST HAVERI-581101 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD. THROUGH. 2. MARUTHI S/O MARTANDAPPA NIKHAM AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADUR, TQ. HANGAL AND DIS. HAVERI-581101. 3. SHANTAPPA S/O NAGAPPA TIPLAPUR AGE 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADUR, TQ HANGAL AND DIST HAVERI 581101. 4. MALTHESH S/O HANMANTAPPA ARER AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADUR TQ HANGAL AND DIST HAVERI 581101. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.14 14:07:20 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:213 CRL.P No. 103271 of 2024 5. ERANNA S/O VEERBHADRAPPA ITAGI AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADUR TQ HANGAL AND DIST HAVERI 581101. 6. SURESH S/O DEVENDRAPPA TAHSILDAR AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADUR TQ HANGAL AND DIST HAVERI 581101. 7. SIDDLINGAPPA S/O MAHALINGAPPA SAKRIKOPPA AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADUR, TQ HANGAL AND DIST HAVERI 581101. 8. NINGAPPA S/O BASAPPA PUJJAR AGE 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADUR, TQ HANGAL AND DIST HAVERI 581101. 9. MALTESH S/O NINGAPPA PUJJAR AGE 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADUR, TQ HANGAL AND DIST HAVERI 581101. 10. SHIVAPPA S/O SHEKAPPA KORWAR AGE 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADUR, TQ HANGAL AND DIST HAVERI 581101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. N.D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R10) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF DATED 30.08.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND JMFC HANAGAL ON IA NO.1 FILED U/SEC. 323 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.356/2017 FOR OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 143, 148, 447, 427, 454, 307, 395, 504 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:213 CRL.P No. 103271 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri H.N. Gularaddi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1, and Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 10. 2. The petitioner is the de facto complainant, who had filed an application under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), seeking to commit the matter to the Sessions Court, on the ground that the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Code (for short, ‘the IPC) were prima facie made out. 3. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial judge by way of the impugned order. The validity of that order is challenged in the present petition. 4. Sri H.N. Gularaddi, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds stated in the petition, contended that specific allegations were made by the complainant that accused No. 3, with an axe, attempted to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:213 CRL.P No. 103271 of 2024 injure the complainant. However, the complainant allegedly escaped the blow. 5. It is argued that this demonstrated a clear intention on the part of accused No. 3 to take away the life of the complainant, and, therefore, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC would be prima facie attracted. Accordingly, the petitioner contended that the case ought to have been committed to the Sessions Court for trial. 6. The application was opposed by the accused party. 7. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial judge dismissed the application, which, according to the petitioner, resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The petitioner accordingly sought allowing of the present petition. 8. Per contra, Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 10, supported the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:213 CRL.P No. 103271 of 2024 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. On such perusal, it is observed that the learned trial judge rightly took into consideration the statements made by PW- 1 and PW-2 in their examination-in-chief, wherein they stated that accused No. 3, namely Maltesh, allegedly swung an axe at the complainant, but the axe fell on the compound. According to the witnesses, but for the compound wall, it would have hit the complainant, and the complainant would have lost his life. 10. Such a hypothetical statement cannot form a sufficient basis for committing the matter to the Sessions Court. Therefore, the dismissal of the application under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C., filed by the complainant, is just and proper. 11. Moreover, before committing a matter to the Sessions Court, the material evidence on record must be sufficient to prima facie establish the commission of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:213 CRL.P No. 103271 of 2024 offence, and it is within the discretion of the concerned trial court to decide whether such commitment is warranted. 12. In the present case, there has been a proper and sound exercise of discretionary power by the learned trial Magistrate, which requires no interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ORDER i. The petition is dismissed. ii. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending I.As are disposed of. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 4