Karnataka High Court
Chikkaraju @ Puttashambu vs State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2018
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1273 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. CHIKKARAJU @ PUTTASHAMBU,
S/O PUTTASHAMBU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O KOTEKOPPA VILLAGE,
UYYAMBALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGAR - 571 511,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
2. KALE GOWDA,
S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O THAGADEGOWDANADODDU,
UYYAMBALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGAR - 571 511.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KODIHALLI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
:2:
CRL.R.P. FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2017
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA TO SIT AT
KANAKAPURA IN S.C.NO. 86/2012.
THIS CRL.R.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners who are arraigned as accused no.2 and 4 in S.C.No.86/2012 seeking setting aside of the order dated 27.9.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, to sit at Kanakapura dismissing the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and to pay cost of Rs.2,500/- each. The same has been challenged under this revision petition by urging various grounds.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the State at the stage of admission.
3. There is no dispute that petitioners are arraigned as accused no.2 and 4 respectively in S.C.No.86/2012. The charge sheet is laid against them for the offence punishable under Section 115 of IPC. This Court in :3: Crl.R.P.No.485/2013 vide order dated 11.04.2014 had passed an order directing the court below to reconsider the application filed under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. on hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
4. In pursuance to the order passed by this court, the petitioners herein filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.86/2012 seeking discharge. The said application came to be rejected by imposing costs which is challenged under this petition by urging various grounds.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments has taken me through the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.86/2012. He contends that court below has gravely erred in imposing the cost of Rs.2,500/- which is unjust and erroneous and it is a matter of right that petitioners are entitled to argue before framing of charge. Therefore, it requires to revisit the impugned order as wherein no justifiable reasons have been assigned for rejection of the application. On these grounds urged by :4: the learned counsel for petitioners seeks for allowing the petition and setting aside the order in S.C.No.86/2012 relating to the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
6. On contrary to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for State supports the impugned order passed by the Trial court rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. as petitioners are being arraigned as accused. The order needs no interference as it is found to be justifiable.
7. Having regarding to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, it is relevant to state that in pursuance of the order passed by this court in Crl.P.No.485/2013 dated 11.04.2014 the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners before the Trial Court in S.C.No.86/2012 for fresh consideration by giving an opportunity to both the parties. But the Trial Court dismissed the application by imposing costs of Rs.2,500/-.
:5:
8. However, keeping in view the contentions urged and as well as the reasons assigned in the petition, it is said that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.86/2012 relating to dismissal of the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is hereby maintained. But the cost of Rs.2,500/- imposed by the Trial Court in respect of petitioners requires intervention. In terms of the aforesaid reason and so also it is relevant to state that once charge sheet has been laid against the accused, the case has been set down for hearing before charge or for filing an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in respect of framing of charge that whether there are prima facie materials found against the accused. As at this stage, as a matter of right the accused needs to address their case before framing of charge, as it is the indefensible right. But the court below has imposed cost of Rs.2,500/- by rejecting the application filed by them under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it requires intervention. By looking into the materials available on record there is no justification given by the Trial court in imposing cost of Rs.2,500/- and also no justifiable reason :6: has been assigned by the court below while rejecting the said application.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby allowed. The order passed by the court below in S.C.No.86/2012 dated 27.09.2017 in so far as it relates to imposing of cost of Rs.2,500/- is hereby set-aside.
In view of disposal of the revision petition, I.A.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE DKB