Karnataka High Court
Shri Basavaraj S/O. Ningappa Bedasur vs Shri B V Malagoudar on 22 August, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11995
CRL.P No. 103764 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.103764 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHRI. BASAVARAJ,
S/O. NINGAPPA BEDASUR,
AGE. 56 YEARS,
OCC. ADVOCATE,
R/O. CHIKKAUMBI,
TALUK. SAUNDATTI,
NOW RESIDING AT RAMPUR SITE,
SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH S. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. B. V. MALAGOUDAR
AGE. 65 YEARS,
OCC. ADVOCATE,
Digitally R/O. "SANTHOSH" COURT ROAD,
signed by
MALATESH RAMAPUR SITE, SAUNDATTI,
KC DIST: BELAGAVI.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR. P. C.,
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.04.2023 PASSED BY
THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT,
BELAGAVI IN CRL. R.P. NO. 85/2021 AND THE ORDER DATED
27.01.2021 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SAUNDATTI IN PCR NO. 258/2018 (CC NO.241/2021) FOR THE
OFFENCES U/S 499, 500 OF IPC, AND REMAND THE COMPLAINT
CASE BACK TO THE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER LAW AS FAR
AS THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO. 5 IS CONCERNED.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11995
CRL.P No. 103764 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) The matter pertains to Dharwad Bench and is taken up at Bengaluru through video conferencing.
2. Heard Sri Satish S.Raichur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed with the following prayer:
"Set aside the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble V Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Belagavi, in Crl.R.P.No.85/2021 and the Order dated 27.01.2021 passed by Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Saundatti, in PCR No.258/ 2018 (CC No.241/2021) for the offences under Section 499, 500 of Indian Penal Code and remand the complaint case back to the, for fresh adjudication as per law as far as the respondent/accused No.5 is concerned."
4. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: -3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11995 CRL.P No. 103764 of 2023 A private complaint came to be filed by the petitioner herein seeking action against respondent and four other accused persons. The learned Trial Judge after recording the sworn statement of complainant, heard the counsel for petitioner and took cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 4 as per allegations in the private complaint and insofar as the present respondent who is accused No.5, did not take cognizance on the ground that accused No.5 being an advocate who represents accused Nos.1 to 4 in O.S.No.150/2008 did not express any malice as against the petitioner herein from the material placed on record.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein filed a revision petition before the District Judge in Crl.R.P.No.85/2021.
6. Learned District Judge, after securing the records, heard the parties in detail and noting the fact that even if the allegations found against petitioner in the private complaint is to be accepted as true for the sake of argument, respondent herein would be protected from the alleged criminal action on account of ninth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11995 CRL.P No. 103764 of 2023 Code and dismissed the revision petition upholding the Order of the Trial Court.
7. Being further aggrieved by the same, complainant/ petitioner is before this Court.
8. Sri Satish S. Raichur, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that accused No.5 has actively participated in defaming the petitioner in the guise of Court proceedings. Therefore, learned Trial Judge was bound to consider the case of the petitioner in proceeding against accused No.5 as well, and sought for allowing the petition.
9. He also pointed out that except stating that respondent herein was an advocate and he was only representing accused Nos.1 to 4 in O.S.No.150/2008 no further discussion or reasoned order is forthcoming for non taking action against respondent herein and sought for remitting the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
10. Per contra, Sri V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel for the respondent/accused No.5 supports the impugned Order. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11995 CRL.P No. 103764 of 2023
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
12. On such perusal, it is crystal clear that accused Nos.1 to 4 are defendants in O.S.No.150/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Saundatti. Written statement is admittedly filed at the instructions of accused Nos.1 to 4 and signed by accused No.5 as an advocate for accused Nos.1 to 4.
13. Likewise, cross-examination of complainant petitioner is also at the instructions of accused Nos.1 to 4. No doubt, while so cross-examining, some of the suggestions that are made to the complainant per se are not in good taste. However, such questions are not put to witness (complainant) in his individual capacity by accused No.5 and it was at the instructions of accused Nos.1 to 4.
14. Therefore, if not in so many words, learned Trial Judge has specifically stated that accused No.5 being an advocate, did not possess any malice or disregard insofar as the character of the complainant is concerned and all the suggestions that were put to the complainant during the course of cross-examination are at the instructions of accused Nos.1 to 4 who have been proceeded with the criminal action.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11995 CRL.P No. 103764 of 2023
15. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court further bestowed its attention to the ninth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and has further assigned the reasons to support the view taken by the learned Trial Judge in not taking cognizance as against respondent/accused No.5.
16. Further, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court also took into consideration the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Surinder Mohan Vikal v. A.L. Chopra, reported in (1978)2 SCC 403 and few other cases which are germane to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
17. This Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not find any good reasons to annul the well reasoned Order of the Trial Court in not taking cognizance against the respondent.
18. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 19 Sl No.: 18