Karnataka High Court
Smt Latha V vs State By on 22 August, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 6159 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6159 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT LATHA V
W/O PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
NO.70/47 SRI LAKSHMI NIVASA
MARIYAPPANAPALYA
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU -560060
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANDA V S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
KUMBALAGUDU POLICE
REP. BY ITS HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU -560 001
2. SRI RAMESH
Digitally signed by S/O LAKSHMANA BOVI
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA NO.70/47 SRI LAKSHMI NIVASA
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU -560060
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2020 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.1/2020
ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
-2-
CRL.P No. 6159 of 2022
b) CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE TO PASS
ORDERS FOR IMPLEADING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AS
ADDITIONAL ACCUSED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 07.09.2020 passed in Crl.R.P.No.1/2020 setting aside an order passed by the learned Magistrate on an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., bringing in accused No.3 into the array of accused in C.C.No.5697/2016.
2. Heard Sri.Ananda V.S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Smt. K.P.Yashodha, appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant takes place on 15.03.2015 and after the relationship having gone sour, the complaint is registered against the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law in Crime No.173/2016 and the Police after investigation filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.5796/2016 giving accused No.3 - the -3- CRL.P No. 6159 of 2022 brother-in-law from the array of accused, on the ground that there were no allegations against the said accused.
4. During the proceedings, the prosecution files an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., seeking to rope in accused No.3 on the ground that there were allegations against the said accused.
5. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 20.12.2019 allows the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., and impleads accused No.3 in C.C.No.5796/2016. Accused No.3 calls this in question before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.1/2020. This is allowed by the Revisional Court on the score that the accused, after having been dropped in the charge sheet has been roped in, without even notifying the accused, and pass proceedings to the following order:
"ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The impugned order dated 20-12-2019 passed in C.C.No.5796/2016 by the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru -4- CRL.P No. 6159 of 2022 Rural District, Bengaluru is set aside. The learned ACJM is directed to issue prior notice to the petitioner herein calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be made accused. Only after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, a suitable order has to be passed, keeping in mind the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Constitutional Bench decision in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others ([2014] 3 SCC 92) and Jogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2015 15 SC. 2951).
It is the aforesaid order that the petitioner calls in question, in the subject proceedings.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are allegations against accused No.3 and he was rightly roped in on an application being filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., and the order of the Revisional Court must be set aside and accused No.3 should be tried along with others.
7. On the other hand, the learned HCGP would point at the order of the Revisional Court, and submit that it is an innocuous order and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, as it is only an order remitting the matter back to the hands of the -5- CRL.P No. 6159 of 2022 learned Magistrate to follow the procedure and pass an appropriate orders.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and the order that is passed by the Revisional Court is as afore-quoted.
The Revisional Court only directs that an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., should have been permitted only after notifying accused No.3, which is in consonance with law and no prejudice is caused to the present petitioner - the complainant by the revisional order, as the matter is remitted back to the hands of the learned Magistrate to pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law after issuing a show cause notice to accused No.3.
10. The contention of the petitioner that accused No.3 had knowledge of the order and therefore, the order should be set aside is unacceptable. The knowledge of the order cannot -6- CRL.P No. 6159 of 2022 replace the procedure to be followed as is contemplated, under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG