AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana
As common question of fact and law arise for consideration in these petitions and since the petitioner in all these petitions is common, these petitions were heard together are being disposed of by this common order.
In these petitions filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for quashing the investigation by Viveknagar Police in Crime No. 146/2010, investigation by Pulakeshinagar in Crime No. 168/2010, investigation by Banasawadi Police in Crime No. 324/2010, and investigation by Pulakeshinagar Police in Crime No. 182/2010, interalia on the ground that he has been falsely implicated by the respective police, therefore the investigation by the Police in these cases are required to be quashed.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in all these cases, the compliant filed before the police was against the unknown persons and during investigation the respective police have falsely implicated the petitioner. In Crime No. 146/2010 of Viveknagar police Station, the are investigating the case for the offence punishable u/s 380 IPC and in the other cases the offences alleged are punishable u/s 392 IPC. The I.O. after completing the investigating have filed the charge sheet and the matters are pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate far trial, No doubt the complaints filed in these cases before the police ware against the unknown persons as at that stage the respective complainant had no knowledge about the identity of the culprit, However according to the investigating officers, during the investigating the petitioner herein was apprehended and the incriminating materials were recorded at his instance and subsequently those articles have been identified by the respective complainant
Therefore at this stage there are prima facie materials to proceed with the case against the petitioner. The question as to whether the petitioner was the culprit and responsible for the commission of the offence will have to be decided by the trial court after recording the evidence. The contentions urged in these petitions are all in the nature of the defense. In exercise of the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. that Court cannot hold enquiry into the disputed facts. Therefore on the basis of the contentions urged in these petitions which axe in the nature of the defense, the prosecution launched against the petitioner cannot ha quashed, Therefore I find no ground to quash the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner, In this view of the matter, I find no ground to entertain the petitions. Therefore the petitions are rejected.