Karnataka High Court
A. Vasanth Kumar And Anr. vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ1958, ILR2004KAR358, 2004 CRI. L. J. 1960, 2004 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1277, (2004) ILR (KANT) (1) 358, (2004) 3 RECCRIR 201
Author: K. Ramanna
Bench: K. Ramanna
ORDER K. Ramanna, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 14.3.2000 passed by the Addl. J.M.F.C. III Court, Raichur in C.C.No. 779/98, whereby the Court below allowed the application filed by the complainant through prosecutor under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences against these revision petitioners (Proposed Accused Nos. 9 & 10) have been taken and summons were issued. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the order that the charge sheet filed about three years back and the charge sheet does not disclose involvement of the revision petitioners - proposed accused in the commission of the alleged offences. After recording the evidence of 7 witnesses, the complainant party with a sole intention to harass them had filed an application through A.P.P. to issue summons, which is contrary to the settled law. There is no consistent evidence on the alleged evidence to show a prima facie case to summon them.
2. Heard the arguments of Ms. Chandrakala for revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent and perused the records.
3. It is an admitted fact that the law was set in motion on the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W. 1 against accused 1 to 8 and others for an offence punishable under Section 147, 504, 506, 323, 324 R/ w 149 IPC. Though the complaint was filed against 8 accused and other persons, actually the charge sheet has been filed only against 8 accused persons. So after framing the charges against 8 accused persons, the evidence of 7 witnesses including the complainant and the injured persons was recorded. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. came to be filed. So after considering the evidence of P.W. 1, 3, 4 and 7, the Trial Court allowed the application and issued summons.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the State could file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the proposed accused persons at any stage of the case. Since the evidence of prosecution witnesses viz., P.Ws 1 to 7 discloses the prima facie case against them and therefore, the Trial Court allowed the application and issued summons and hence the order under revision does not call for any interference.
6. The evidence of P.W. 1, 3, 4 and 7 which discloses that at the time of alleged incident, the revision petitioner 1 & 2 accompanied accused No. 1 to 8 and said to have been instigated them to assault. Since the evidence placed on record by the prosecution discloses prima facie case i.e.., that the revision petitioners 1 and 2 instigated the other accused persons and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly issued summons to appear before the Court. It is for the revision petitioner to cross examine the witnesses on the point that the statement recorded by the police does not disclose their names at the time of the incident. Therefore, the Trial Court considering the prima facie evidence of P.W. 1, 3,4,& 7 has rightly issued summons to the revision petitioners.
7. Hence, I do not find any illegality or incorrectness in the finding recorded by the Trial Court. Even the Court can suo-moto summon to the proposed accused persons after perusing the statement of the prosecution witnesses and other material placed on record by the Investigating Officer. Whereas in the instant case, the complainant filed the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. through Prosecutor, which has been rightly considered by the Trial Court. Hence the revision petition does not survive and devoid of any merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
8. It is made clear that the opinion expressed by me one way or the other with the sole intention to dispose of this revision petition will not come in the way of Trial Court to dispose of the case pending before it.