Karnataka High Court
Somanna S/O Chanabasappa Basettiyavar vs Psi Kaginele Police Station on 6 April, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRL.P No. 100479 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100479 OF 2021 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1. SOMANNA
S/O CHANABASAPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 82 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ AND DIST. HVERI 581110.
(DEAD)
2. DAYANANDA @ DAYAPPA
S/O SOMANNA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ AND DIST. HVERI 581110.
Digitally
signed by
VN
VN
BADIGER
Location:
BADIGER DHARWAD
3. MALLIKARJUN
Date:
2022.04.18
11:39:05
+0530
S/O SHIVASHETTEPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ AND DIST. HVERI 581110.
-2-
CRL.P No. 100479 of 2021
4. BASAVARAJ
S/O SHIVASHETTEPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 53 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI 581110
5. SIDLINGAPPA
S/O BASETTEPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI 581110
6. GANGADHAR
S/O BASETTEPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI 581110
7. RUDRAPPA
S/O BASETTEPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI 581110
8. PRAJWAL
S/O SHANTAPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI 581110
-3-
CRL.P No. 100479 of 2021
9. ADARSH
S/O SIDLINGAPPA BASETIYAVAR
AGE. 26 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI 581110
10. CHETAN
S/O SIDLINGAPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 30 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI 581110
11. GURUSHANTAPPA
S/O PUTTAPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 65 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI 581110
12. VINAY S/O MRUTYUNJAYA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 23 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVAE SERVICE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI 581110
13. JAGADISH
S/O GURUSHANTAPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 39 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI 581110
-4-
CRL.P No. 100479 of 2021
14. MAHESH
S/O GURUSHANTAPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 37 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI 581110
15. PRASHANT
S/O PARAMESHAPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI 581110
16. VEERESH S/O RUDRAPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. KURUBAGONDA,
TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI 581110
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M M HIREMATH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PSI KAGINELE POLICE STATION
R/BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD 580011.
2. SMT. LALITA
W/O ADIVEPPA BASETTIYAVAR
AGE. 64 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KURUBAGONDA,
TQ AND DIST. HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
-5-
CRL.P No. 100479 of 2021
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING IN C.C.NO.203/2017
DATED 02/02/2021 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO
16 (ACCUSED NO.9 TO 23) ARE CONCERNED, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BYADAGI,
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.143,
147, 188, 323, 354B, 447, 504, 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
An application under section 319 of Cr.P.C., was filed by the public prosecutor to arraign the petitioners as accused No.9 to 23 contending that initially the first information report was registered against 24 accused, however charge sheet was filed against accused No.1 to 8 by leaving out other accused persons. However, the victims i.e. PW1 and PW2 have categorically stated in their examination-in-chief the involvement of other accused in the alleged incident. The learned Magistrate, considering the averments made in the application filed under section -6- CRL.P No. 100479 of 2021 319 of Cr.P.C., and after hearing the learned public prosecutor allowed the application by arraigning the petitioners herein as accused. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- accused No.9 to 23 submits that the application filed under section 319 of Cr.P.C., was allowed by the learned Magistrate without issuing any notice, which is contrary to the provisions contained in section 319 of Cr.P.C. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Somashekar and others v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2016 (4) AKR 392.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that since there was a prima- facie case made out against accused No.9 to 23, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the order for arraigning them as accused No.9 to 23.
-7-CRL.P No. 100479 of 2021
4. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 would reiterate the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Asha Somashekhar (supra) has held that it is always incumbent upon the criminal courts to issue prior notice to a person calling upon him to show cause as to why he shall not be made as an additional accused and to give an opportunity of hearing him and then suitable orders should be passed. It was further held that if the order is passed summoning a particular person in terms of Section 319, Cr.P.C., without giving prior notice, such an order would not withstand the legal scrutiny. In view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Asha Somashekar (supra) the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate arraigning the petitioners as accused, -8- CRL.P No. 100479 of 2021 without issuing notice, is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadagi in C.C.No.203/2017 is hereby quashed.
The learned Magistrate is directed to issue notice to the petitioners herein calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be arraigned as accused in the case and only after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, suitable order shall be passed, keeping in mind the observation by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN