Karnataka High Court
Ramchandrappa And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2023
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8704
CRL.RP No. 200106 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200106 OF 2023 (397)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMCHANDRAPPA S/O BUDDAPPA CHALUVADI,
AGE. 42 YEARS
2. SHANTHKUMAR S/O RAMCHANDRAPPA CHALUVADI
AGE. 40 YEARS
3. SHREEDHAR S/O VENKATESH CHALUVADI
AGE. 38 YEARS
4. PRADEEP S/O EARESH CHALUVADI
AGE. 41 YEARS
RAMAPPA S/O NARASAPPA CHALUVADI
Digitally
signed by DIED ON 18-01-2022
KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN 5. SHIVAGENI S/O NARASAPPA CHALUVADI
Location: High
Court Of AGE. 35 YEARS
Karnataka
6. RAVIKUMAR S/O RAMAPPA CHALUVADI
AGE. 39 YEARS,
7. HUSAINAMMA W/O SAGARAPPA CHALUVADI
AGE. 65 YEARS,
8. RUDRAMMA W/O NARASINGAPPA CHALUVADI
AGE. 55 YEARS
9. ANJAMMA W/O VENKATESH CHALUVADI
AGE. 50 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8704
CRL.RP No. 200106 of 2023
10. TAYAMMA W/O VEERESH CHALUVADI
AGE. 52 YEARS
11. EARAMMA W/O NARASAPPA CHALUVADI
AGE. 33 YEARS
12. HANUMANTHI W/O RAMAPPA CHALUVADI
AGE. 36 YEARS,
13. JEEVITHA W/O HANUMANTHA CHALUVADI
AGE. 40 YEARS
14. NARASAMMA W/O NARSINGAPPA CHALUVADI
AGE: ___
ALL RESIDENTIAL OF NANDHIHAL
TQ MANVI,
DIST RAICHUR 584123
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MANVI POLICE STATION,
TQ MANVI,
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY
SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALBURAGI BENCH
KALABURAGI 585103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
This CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTIION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8704
CRL.RP No. 200106 of 2023
ORDER DATED 11.01.2022 IN S.C.NO.101/2018 (CRIME
NO.244/2016 OF MANVI P. S. FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 323,
324 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC) PASSED BY
THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR
ISSUING NOTICE TO THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners who are said to be the additional accused Nos.12 to 26, have filed this petition challenging the dismissal of the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. which was filed for discharge them from S.C.No.101/2018.
02. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
03. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Sharanappa, the police have registered -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8704 CRL.RP No. 200106 of 2023 the FIR against 26 persons including these petitioners for the various offences including 307 of IPC in Crime No.244/2016. After the investigation, the police have filed the charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 11 by dropping the names of these petitioners. Subsequently, the case has been committed to the learned Sessions Court and matter was assigned to the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed the charges against the accused Nos.1 to 11 and summoned the complainant and examined as PW.1. During his evidence, the PW.1 Sharanappa given evidence against these petitioners. Based upon the evidence, the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for impeading these petitioners as additional accused for facing the trial along with accused Nos.1 to
11. On the application filed by the prosecutor, the Trial Court has issued the notice to these petitioners on 12.11.2020 to be appeared on 30.12.2020.
04. In pursuance of the notice, these petitioners are appeared before the Trial Court and they have shown as -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8704 CRL.RP No. 200106 of 2023 proposed accused Nos.2 to 26. The learned counsel for the petitioners appeared before the Court along with bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. They have been granted bail. Subsequently, the Trial Court has posted the matter for framing of charges against these petitioners. Subsequently, on 06.04.2021, the learned counsel for these petitioners has filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging them from the case, which came to be rejected, which is under challenge.
05. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Trial Court though issued the notice, but no order has been passed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for impleading them as additional accused. There is violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in 2009 (16) SCC 785 and order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. There is no order for impleading these petitioners as additional accused. The trial cannot be proceeded against them and -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8704 CRL.RP No. 200106 of 2023 no opportunity has been given them for objecting the application and no order has been passed. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.
06. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the petition and supported the order of the Trial Court.
07. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the record, it reveals that in the FIR the names of these petitioners is shown as accused No.12 to 26. Admittedly, the police have dropped their names from the charge- sheet. Subsequently, the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and committed the case to the learned Sessions Court. Therefore, the charges were framed against the accused Nos.1 to 11. The evidence of prosecution witness almost 04 witnesses have been examined. The evidence was adduced by PW.1 and other for implicating these petitioners as additional accused involved in the crime. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor has filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for impleading these petitioners as additional accused. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8704 CRL.RP No. 200106 of 2023
08. Though, the Trial Court has rightly issued the notice against these petitioners. But, the Trial Court has not passed any order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by satisfying itself for impleading these petitioners as additional accused. Absolutely, there is no opportunity given to these petitioners for the purpose of filing the objections and hearing the petitioners before impleading them as additional accused. The Trial Court has not passed any order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Such being the case, once the proposed accused were not made as additional accused by passing the order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the question of framing of charges against these petitioners or filing an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge does not arise at all. The Trial Court has committed an error in not passing any order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by giving an opportunity to the petitioners before passing the order by impleading them as additional accused.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8704 CRL.RP No. 200106 of 2023
09. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in 2009 (16) SCC 785 that, at what stage the application shall be filed, how to deal with the matter by the Trial Court, to such an application filed by the prosecution. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha and others vs. State of Karnataka by Electronic City Police Bangalore, in Crl.R.P..No.231/2016, has contended that while passing any order it is necessary to issue notice to the petitioners to implead them as additional accused, by show-causing them why they should not made an accused and thereafter the order is required to be passed. This Court in a similar case Crl.R.P.No.650/2021 dated 28.07.2021 in the case of Tabbussum Zahera vs. State of Karnataka, a detailed order has been passed and stated how to deal with the matter when an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and passing the order for impleading the additional accused.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8704 CRL.RP No. 200106 of 2023
10. Such being the case, I am of the view that the Trial Court has committed an error even without giving opportunity to show-causing them by giving an opportunity for filing the objections and hearing them and without passing an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot proceeded to frame the charges. Therefore, the order under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. cannot be considered as a discharge application, as no order has been passed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the matter is required for remit back to the Sessions Court for fresh consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER i. The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. ii. The order of dismissing the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is hereby set-aside.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8704 CRL.RP No. 200106 of 2023 iii. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for considering the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and to pass an order by following the procedure as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh's case, Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Asha's case, order of this Court in the case of Tabassum Zahera and latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab reported in (2023) 1 SCC 289.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, the pending I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16