Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sathyanarayana vs The State By: on 13 March, 2014
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRL.P.No.702/2014
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SATHYANARAYANA,
S/O SRI .HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
2. SMT. LAKSHMI
W/O SRI SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
3. MISS. SAHANA @ SHOBA,
D/O SRI SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
4. SRI C. SANDEEPA,
S/O SRI SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
R/O ANANDAPURAM MAIN ROAD,
SAGARA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DIST. -577 412. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHESH B.J, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE STATE BY:
RURAL POLICE STATION,
SAGAR, SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 412.
-2-
2. SRI .PRAVEEN KUMAR,
S/O GANGOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O ANANDAPURAM MAIN ROAD,
SAGARA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DIST.-577 412. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:18.04.2013 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.192/2013 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners, complainants in S.C. No.162/2013 pending on the file of Sessions Court, Shimoga, have come up in this proceeding seeking quashing of the order dated 18.04.2013 passed in Crl.Misc. No.192/2013, wherein the Sessions Court, Shimoga, passed an order in transferring the proceedings in Crime No.41/2012, now registered as C.C. No.105/2013, to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga.
-3-
2. Admittedly, petitioners herein filed a complaint in Crime No.41/2012 alleging that 2nd respondent herein and others have committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 355, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'). The said complaint is registered by Sagar Rural Police and subsequently, committed to the Court of Sessions Judge and registered as S.C. No.162/2013 and pending on the file of Court of Sessions Judge, Shimoga. It is also stated by petitioners herein that the accused in the said proceedings namely, Praveen Kumar, who is 2nd respondent herein, has filed a complaint against petitioners in Crime No.40/2012 registered by Sagar Rural Police for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., which is subsequently registered as C.C. No.105/2013 and pending on the file of JMFC., Sagar.
-4-
3. It is the case of petitioners that subsequently, the 2nd respondent, who is the complainant in C.C. No.105/2013, has filed petition in Crl. Misc. No.192/2013 under Section 408 of Crl. P.C., seeking transfer of C.C. No.105/2013 pending on the file of JMFC., Shimoga, to the Court of Sessions Judge, Shimoga, to be tried along with S.C. No.162/2013. It is seen that the Sessions Court, after hearing the petitioner, Praveen Kumar, in the said petition, has proceeded to allow the same and committed the proceedings in C.C. No.105/2013 to the Court of Sessions, Shimoga, to be tried along with S.C. No.162/2013 by order dated 18.04.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed seeking quashing of the impugned order.
4. Section 408 of Criminal Procedure Code reads as under:
408. Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals - (1) Whenever it is made to appear to a Sessions Judge that an order -5- under this sub-section is expedient for the ends of justice, he may order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division.
(2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested or on his own initiative. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of section 407 shall apply in relation to an application to the Sessions Judge for an order under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to an application to the High Court for an order under sub-section (1) of section 407, except that sub-section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the words "one thousand rupees" occurring therein, the words "two hundred and fifty rupees" were substituted.
5. On going through the aforesaid provisions, it is clearly seen that the transfer petition under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be entertained by the -6- Court of Sessions on three occasions firstly, either on the report of the lower Court, secondly on the application of party interested, thirdly on its own initiative. In the instant case, the transfer petition is filed by the 2nd respondent herein for the reason that the proceedings pending in C.C. No.105/2013 is against the very same persons, who have lodged complaint against him for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 of IPC, and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Act and that the proceedings in S.C. No.162/2013 as well as C.C. No.105/2013 appear to be with reference to between same set of people and arising out of same incident resulting in allegations and counter allegations being made by the complainant in C.C. No.105/2013 as well as complainants in S.C. No.162/2013.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, having considered the factual matrix, has rightly felt that both the matters should be heard together and consequently, the impugned -7- order is passed by the Sessions Court. The plain reading of Section 408 Cr.P.C., makes it very clear that it is exclusive discretion of the Sessions Court to transfer a particular case from one criminal Court to another criminal Court in its sessions division. However, while exercising its discretion there is no compulsion on it to provide an opportunity to other parties to oppose the said proceedings before deciding the application for transfer.
7. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners would try to rely upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of NAIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (1996 Crl. L.J. 3998), wherein the criminal case that was filed against the accused was sought to be transferred on set of facts and circumstances different from that of the present petition. In the instant case, the case registered in C.C. No.105/2013 is transferred to same Court where the proceedings were initiated by -8- petitioners herein against 2nd respondent herein in S.C. No.162/2013.
8. The facts of the instant case being distinguishable from that of the facts pertaining to the judgment of Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners and the relevant provisions of Section 408 Cr.P.C., not mandating giving of an opportunity to the accused before transferring a criminal case, the question of relying upon the said judgment as a guiding factor to consider this case, does not arise.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the present petition does not merit admission. Accordingly, same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma