Karnataka High Court
Sri. Basavaraj S/O. Mallappa Saunshi vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9732
CRL.P No. 100622 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100622 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. MALLAPPA SAUNSHI,
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BANKAPUR, TAL. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581202.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND .A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BANKAPUR POLICE STATION,
NOW R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD-580011.
Digitally
VISHAL
signed by
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
... RESPONDENT
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.10.18
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)
11:28:55
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC
NO. 938/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI
REGISTERED U/SEC. 446 OF CR.P.C. ORDER SHEET MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9732
CRL.P No. 100622 of 2023
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.938/2022 under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. by which the concerned Court has forfeited the surety bond of the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Srinand A.Pachhapure appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Shri V.S. Kalasurmath appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:
A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.28/2022 against one Mahesh for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 355, 504 & 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(5a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014. The issue in the lis is not concerning the crime registered against Mahesh. The accused - Mahesh gets arrested on 17.03.2022 and the concerned Court grants regular bail on a condition of execution of personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner is the neighbour of the accused. It is the averment that on the request of the parents of the accused, the petitioner stands as -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9732 CRL.P No. 100622 of 2023 surety to the accused and later the accused was released on bail. After filing of the charge sheet and cognizance being taken in Spl. Case No.25/2022, summons was issued to the witnesses. On 13.10.2022, the accused was present and the matter was adjourned to 03.11.2022. It transpires that on the said date, the accused had filed an exemption application and the matter was adjourned to 22.11.2022 issuing a non-bailable warrant to the witnesses. On the said date, the accused was absent and the Court had issued NBW to the accused and notice to the surety i.e., the petitioner. It is the averment that notice was neither served on the petitioner nor NBW was executed and the matter was adjourned to 22.12.2022. On 22.12.2022, the petitioner averse that he had appeared before the Court and the accused was not present. Therefore, the Court forfeits the surety bond and directs the office to register a separate case against the petitioner under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. and matter was adjourned on several occasions and a fine levy warrant is later issued against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the separate proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that issuance of FLW against the petitioner is contrary -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9732 CRL.P No. 100622 of 2023 to law. It is his submission that under Section 447 of the Cr.P.C., notice was issued and the petitioner had deposited Rs.10,000/- and the Court had accepted the same. On deposit of the said amount, the Court ought to have closed the proceedings and not issued a fine levy warrant. For having stood as surety to the accused and the petitioner being present whenever it was needed before the concerned Court has resulted in the impugned proceedings. He would seek quashment of the entire proceedings.
5. Learned HCGP would though at the outset seek to refute the submissions but would submit that the petitioner had deposited Rs.10,000/- and there was no warrant for initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner. He would further contend that the accused himself has been acquitted by an order of the concerned Court dated 08.06.2023 and therefore, the proceedings should be quashed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9732 CRL.P No. 100622 of 2023
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and they lie in a narrow compass. The accused, one Mahesh gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.28/2022 and the Police after investigation file a charge sheet before the concerned Court in Spl. Case No.25/2022. When the accused Mahesh was arrested, the petitioner being his neighbour had executed a surety bond or stood surety to the accused and on that surety the accused had been released on bail. It transpires that on several occasions the accused was not present and on several occasions the surety was not present. The Court initiates separate proceedings against the petitioner for non appearance of the accused to whom the petitioner had stood surety in Crl. Misc. No.938/2022 under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has paid a fine amount of Rs.10,000/- as was necessary for a proceedings under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. Despite that the Court ought not to have issued a FLW against the petitioner. The situation now is that the accused himself has been acquitted in Spl. Case No.15/2022 and there is no crime pending against the accused and for the petitioner having stood as surety to the accused, the crime is now sought to be pending against him. Permitting the -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9732 CRL.P No. 100622 of 2023 further proceedings against the petitioner would become an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.938/2022 under Section446 of the Cr.P.C. by which the concerned Court has forfeited the surety bond of the petitioner stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE vnp*/ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98