Karnataka High Court
Vinay Shekar vs State By Tumakuru on 8 September, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7381/2018
BETWEEN:
VINAY SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O. G.S.SOMASHEKAR
III CROSS,
SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION
TUMAKURU - 572 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.SHASHIDHARA., ADVOCATE APPEARED THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE)
AND:
1. STATE BY TUMAKURU
TOWN POLICE STATION
TUMAKURU
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. M.SUBHASHINI
W/O. T.S.SHIVAKUMAR
MAJOR
R/AT NO.SIDDARAMANNA BUILDING
BARLINE ROAD, K.R.EXTENSION
TUMAKURU - 572 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1
SRI.V.MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [NO REPRESENTATION])
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 27.08.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU
BENGALURU IN CRL.RP.NO.74/2017 DISMISSING THE
REVISION PETITION AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED
12.10.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SR.CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU IN C.C.NO.101/2013.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT
BENGALURU MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to set aside the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Learned VI Additional District & Sessions/Judge, Tumakuru, Bengaluru in Crl.RP.No.74/2017 by confirming the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Tumakuru in C.C.No.101/2013.
2. I have heard Sri.M.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not present.
3
3. The facts of the case are that, on 10.11.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., accused No.2 came to the house of the first informant. Thereafter, he started unwanted argument with the children of the first informant and it lead to quarrel. Thereafter, accused No.2 summoned his father/accused No.1 and at about 10.00 p.m., he came and assaulted the daughter of the first informant by name Priyanka, husband of the first informant by name T.S.Shivakumar and the son Rahul. It is further alleged that accused No.1 brought knife from the kitchen of the first informant and molested her daughter, threatened them to finish. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed as against accused No.1 and accused No.2 has been exonerated from the charges. Subsequently the learned Public Prosecutor filed application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance against the petitioner. The said application has been objected and contested by the petitioner/accused No.2 and after hearing both the sides, the trial Court allowed the application. Being 4 aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.2 preferred Crl.RP.No.74/2017 before VI Additional & Sessions Judge at Tumakuru. The same was dismissed by confirming the order of the trial Court.
4. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that there are no serious allegations made as against the petitioner/accused No.2 and even in the complaint also, no specific overt act has been alleged against him. It is his further submission that respondent-Police after investigation filed charge sheet only as against accused No.1 by exonerating the petitioner/accused No.2. Under such circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have entertained the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., It is his further submission that the procedure as established by the law has also not been followed. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that there are 5 prima-facie material as against the petitioner/accused No.2 for having involved in the alleged offences. The contents of the complaint and the evidence of PW.1 indicate the presence of accused No.2 at the place of the incident and the serious overt act has been alleged as against him. Taking into consideration all the aspects, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., and passed the impugned order. There are no good grounds made out to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no material as against the petitioner/accused No.2 to invoke the provisions of Section 319 of Cr.P.C., It is his further submission that it is necessary to see whether the prima-facie case exists as 6 against the petitioner/accused No.2 so as to invoke the provisions of Section 319 of Cr.P.C., In the evidence of PW.1, she has clearly stated about the presence of the petitioner/accused No.2 and overt act alleged as against the petitioner/accused No.2. Though the charge sheet does not show the name of the petitioner/accused No.2, it is well settled proposition of law that if during the course of trial, if there are incriminating material as against the petitioner/accused No.2 indicating his complicity, then under such circumstances, the Court can entertain the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., and he may be arrayed as accused. Taking into consideration the said aspects, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court by relying upon the various decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the right conclusion and has dismissed the Revision Petition. There are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The same deserves to be confirmed.
8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner/accused No.2 is 7 studying in Germany and he is attending his last semester. At this point of time, if the petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be present before the Court, it will affect his studies.
9. Keeping in view the above aspects, if the petitioner/accused No.2 is arrayed as accused as per the direction issued by the trial Court, his physical presence may be exempted and his presence may be ordered only when his presence is very much necessary. It is hereby made clear that while framing the charges, recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. can be done virtually or through video conferencing as per the SOP issued by this Court and the Court can proceed in his absence in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.
It is made clear that above observations will not come in the way of disposal of the application. 8
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.Nos.1/2019 and 1/2020 do not survive for
consideration and the same are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM