Karnataka High Court
S Krishnamurthi, vs The State Of Karnataka, By Jamakahandi ... on 13 October, 2011
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN TI lIE HIGII COURT 01: KARNA1'AKA
CIRCUIT BENCH Al' DHARWAD
DATED TIllS TI IE th
13
DAY OF OCTOBER 20 I I
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8285/2010
BETWEEN:
S. Krishnamurthi,
Age:55 years. Occ:SLAO KIADB
Baikampady, Mangalore.
.PETITIONER
(By Shri. K.LPatiI, Advocate)
AND:
The State of' Kamataka,
B' Jamakhandi Town Police Station,
Represented by S.P.P.
2. Nagappa Sb Appasab Kurani,
Age: Major. 0cc: Agriculture.
R'o. Sanal, Tq: Jamakhandi,
Bagalkot.
3. Somaraya Sb Appasab Kurani.
Age:Major. 0cc: Agriculture.
Rio. Sanal, Tq: Jamakhandi,
Bagal kot.
4. N4alappa Sb Appanna Kurani.
Age:Major, 0cc: Agriculture,
Rio. Sanal, Tq: Janiakhandi,
Bagalkot.
.RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkanii. Advocate for respondent No.1
Shri. M.C.l lukkeri, Advocate for respondent No.2, respondent
Nos. 3 and 4- served and unrepresented)
'[his Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings
pending in so hr as this petitioner is concerned, in
C.c.No.36/2005 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior
Division) and J.M.F.C.. Jamkhandi. for the offence punishable
under Sections 403, 404. 419 and 468 read with 43 of Indian
Penal code.
'[his petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
I leard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The hlicts briefly stated are that the second respondent herein had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cod& for brevity) on the tile of the Judicial Magistrate 'S 'I •1 First Class, Jamakhandi, alleging that the ancestral property in land bearing survey No.44/2B of Sanal village sas acquired for the Upper Krishna Project and an award was passed fixing the compensation of fl2, 175/- payable to the father of the second respondent. It is Ilirther alleged that this had come to the notice of respondent nos.3 and 4 and the present petitioner. who are none other than the brothers of respondent no.2. The complainant also made one B.S.Rachappanavar, a Village Accountant as accused no.3. 'lhe said accused no.3. however. died during the pendéncy of the proceedings. It is further stated that the thther of respondent no.2 had died in the year 1998 much hefbre the award caine to be passed and the award was in favour of the deceased thther and there was no attempt made to correct the award to indicate the beneficiaries as the present respondents. It is therefore alleged that in the absence of any such correction. the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 were not in a position to withdraw the compensation amount. but with the connivance of the competent officers, the S 4 respondents are alleged to have withdrawn the amount of compensation. It is in this background that a private complaint was sought to be lodged alleging offences punishable under Sections 119, 167,403,404,418, 419 and 467 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal ('ode. The matter was reflrred to the police authorities, who investigated and tiled a charge-sheet against accused nos. 1 and 3, namely, respondent no.3 and the Village Accountant, who had died. The petitioner's name did not ligure in the list of the accused. as there was apparently no incriminating evidence against him. The complaint was converted into a criminal case in CC 36/2005. Thereafter, respondent no.2 is said to have tiLed an application under Section 2 10(2) of the Code to arraign acdused no.2 as one of the accused. In turn, the Assistant Public Prosecutor had filed an application on 13.1.20 10, seeking permission to produce certain additional documents. l'hese applications also did not raise any contention regarding the involvement of the petitioner as an accused. Therefore, it is contended by the & 5 learned counsel for the petitioner that the court belon ha' ing situ mont taken cogniiance against the petitioner and ha' ing issued a aimnt against him, is tholIy inexplicable as there "as no such instance. s here the court could hake exercised such po'aer in terms of Section 319 of the Code. He would point out that it would be open for the court to have arraigned the petitioner as an accused, if it was disclosed from the evidence on record during the course of the trial or at the inquiry, that the accused was invol ed in the commission of any oflbnce. in the absence of which. such 'sarrant issued against the petitioner arraigning as accused, is wholl) inexplicable and entirely ithout basis. It is this shich is sought to be highlighted in support of the petition.
3. ihe petition was admitted in the fIrst instance and an interim order of sta> was granted. From the sequence of events. 'ihich is not seriousl) disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted that there "as no circumstance which warranted the court to name the petitioner as an accused and to issue a warrant acainst him. This. ho ever, does not loreclose the court Iroin dome so. it in the course of trial at a later point o I time. there is evidence placed on record to indicate that the petitioner had indeed committed an\ ollence which would enable the court to exercise power in nam inc him as an accused. \\ ith that observation, the present action of the court belo\\ would certainly be preiudicial to the petitioner and is not warranted having regard to the absence of any circumstance namina him as an accused.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed with the abo\ e observations and that it would he open Ibr the court to exercise its power at the appropriate time, ii it is so warranted and the present petition being allowed does not Ibreclose the court IIom doing so.
Sd! JUDGE n\