Harish Kumar & Others vs State Of Karnataka

S Vishwajith Shetty, J

Accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.64/2023 registered by Honnalli Police Station, Davanagere, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 354, 392, 114 IPC, are before this Court under Section 438 Cr.PC.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

On the complaint of Ambika D/o Prakash dated 16.03.2023, FIR in Crime No.64/2023 was registered by Honnalli police, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and two others.

In the complaint, it is averred that on 16.03.2023, the complainant and other women who are the members of an Association had met in TPM Hall, Behind Taluk Panchayath office at about 5.00 p.m., for the purpose of holding a meeting for purchase of raw material, and at about 5.30 p.m., four persons entered the hall and after abusing and physically pushing the women who had gathered there, had forcibly taken away a sum of Rs.7 lakhs which was kept on the meeting table. Subsequently, complainant came to know that accused nos.1 & 2 and two others were behind the crime. It is also alleged in the complaint that accused no.3 - Manjunatha who is employed in Taluk Panchayath had given information to the other accused persons who had committed the crime. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered in Crime No.64/2023 against accused nos.1 to 3 and two others.

Apprehending arrest in the said case, accused nos.1 to 3 had filed Crl. Misc. No.299/2023 before the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere, which was dismissed on 05.04.2023. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that they have been falsely implicated in the case due to political differences between the two parties. She submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The offence under Section 392 IPC cannot be made out against the petitioners, and accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She submits that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary in the case. The amount of Rs.7 lakhs is required to be recovered.

From the complaint averments, it is seen that on 16.03.2023, four persons had entered the hall in which arrangements were made for holding a meeting to purchase raw materials for the purpose of purchasing products to be sold in the monthly market. An amount of Rs.7 lakhs which was kept on the table for the purpose of purchasing raw material was forcibly taken away by the said accused persons after abusing and physically pushing the women who had gathered for the meeting by abusing and physically pushing the women. A fear was created in the mind of the women gathered in the hall for the purpose of meeting. Therefore, prima facie the offence under Section 392 IPC is made out in the case and the said offence can be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend upto 10 years.

As rightly contended by the learned HCGP, an amount of Rs.7 lakhs robbed by the accused persons is required to be recovered. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the accused may be required in the case. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be granted the discretionary relief of anticipatory relief. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.