Karnataka High Court
Shekharappa S/O. Basavantappa ... vs Manjunath S/O. Basavanneppa @ Basappa ... on 13 February, 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10188/2013
BETWEEN
SHEKHARAPPA
S/O. BASAVANTAPPA SHEELAVANTAR
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KALIWAL, TQ: SAVANUR,
DIST: HAVERI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MANJUNATH
S/O. BASAVANNEPPA @ BASAPPA MEVUNDI
AGE: 33 YEARS,
R/O. KALIWAL
2. ANAND MALLEPPA MARALIHALLI
AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
3. SHIVANAND MALLAPPA MARALIHALLI
AGE: 38 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
4. RAVI BASAVANNEPPA TALAWAR
AGE: 35 YEARS,
-2-
5. CHANNABASAPPA BASAVANNEPPA TALAWAR
AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
6. VIRUPAXAPPA PUTTAPPA GUNJAL
AGE: 55 YEARS,
7. MANTESH VIRUPAXAPPA GUNJAL
AGE: 29 YEARS,
8. CHANNAPPA FAKKIRAPPA GUNJAL
AGE: 38 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
9. DEVENDRAPPA HANAMAPPA GUNJAL
AGE: 38 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
10. HOLALAPPA PUTTAPPA GUNJAL
AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
11. HANAMANTAPPA HOLALAPPA GUNJAL
AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
12. ISMAIL PERSAB NADAF
AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
13. SHIVANAND VIRUPAXAPPA GUNJAL
AGE: 25 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
14. RAMANNA PUTTAPPA GUNJAL
AGE: 49 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
15. SHIDALINGAPPA @SHIDALINGESH
PUTTAPPA DANDAPPANAVAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O. KALIWAL
16. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SAVANUR P.S.
REP. BY S.P.P.,
-3-
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 01.06.2012 PASSED IN C.C.NO.22/2010
(CRIME NO.176/2009) PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, SAVANUR AND ISSUE
DIRECTION TO THE TRIAL COURT TO TRANSFER THE
C.C.NO.22/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) AND JMFC, SAVANUR TO THE SESSIONS COURT,
HAVERI TO TRY ALONG WITH CRIME NO.177/2009
REGISTERED AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed to set aside the order dated 01.06.2012 passed in C.C.No.22/2010 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Savanur with a prayer to direct that the C.C.No.22/2010 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Savanur be made over to the Sessions Court at Haveri to be tried along with the Crime -4- No.177/2009, which is pending as Spl.C.C.No.34/2009 on the file of the said Court.
2. Based on the complaint of one Shekharappa Sheelavantar a case in Crime No.176/2009 was registered in Savanur Police Station on 30.10.2009, alleging that the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC have been committed by the accused therein at 9:45 a.m. on 30.10.2009. The Police after investigation have filed charge sheet in the said case before the learned Magistrate, which is numbered as C.C.No.22/2010.
3. On the basis of the complaint filed by one Veerupaxappa Gunjal, the Savanur Police registered a case in Crime No.177/2009 on 30.10.2009 alleging that on 30.10.2009 at about 10:30 a.m. offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of SC/ST PA -5- Act, 1989 have been committed by the accused mentioned in the said complaint.
4. The petitioner being an accused in Spl. Case No.34/2009, filed an application under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking transfer of the case in C.C.No.22/2010 arising out of the Crime No.176/2009 to the Court of Sessions on the ground that the said case is a counter case to Crime No.177/2009 pending before the learned Sessions Court. The learned Magistrate, rejected the said application on the ground that the case in Crime No.176/2009 is not a counter case to Crime No.177/2009, since both the cases are not arising out the same incident and at the same time. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.
5. Heard Sri.G.N. Narasamanavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Sri.Vinayak S. Kulkarni, -6- learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State-respondent No.16.
6. In view of the orders to be passed, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 15. It is seen that both the cases are not arising out the same incident and at the same time, there is a time difference of 45 minutes between two cases and hence, the case in Crime No.176/2009 does not qualify to be a counter case to the case in Crime No.177/2009. In that view of the matter the learned Magistrate is right in rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking to make over or transfer the case in C.C.No.22/2010 to the Court of Sessions to be tried along with the Special C.C.No.34/2009. Hence, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
7. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from requesting the Special Court on the basis of the materials on record to convince the learned Sessions/Special Judge that one criminal case is a counter -7- case to the other. If they succeed in doing so, it is for the learned Special Judge to proceed in accordance with law.
(Sd/-) JUDGE Vnp*