Karnataka High Court
Santosh And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr on 24 July, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NO. 205249/2017 AND
WP NOS.207278-279/2017, 207280/2017 &
207281/2017 (GM-RES)
Between:
1. Santosh S/o Adveppa Beldale
Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Gumme Colony, Bidar
District: Bidar-585 401
2. Vijaykumar S/o Vaijinath Mangalgi
Age: 45 years Occ: Agriculture
R/o Gumme Colony, Bidar
District: Bidar-585 401
3. Vijaykumar S/o Kasheppa Suthar
Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Gumme Colony, Bidar
District: Bidar-585 401
4. Rajkumar S/o Shivraj
Age: 53 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Gumme Colony, Bidar
District: Bidar-585 401
5. Mallikarjun S/o Basappa
Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture
2
R/o Gumme Colony, Bidar
District: Bidar-585 401
... Petitioners
(By Sri Jairaj K.Bukka, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Police Station Market Bidar
Rep.by Additional Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi
2. Ramesh S/o Late Sangramappa
Age: 44 years Occ: Businessman
R/o Gumme Colony, Bidar
District: Bidar-585 401
... Respondents
(By Sri K.M.Ghate, Additional Government Advocate)
These Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 & 227
R/w Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari for
quashing the entire proceedings in CC No.369/2016 pending
before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II Court, Bidar,
which is at Annexure-H and issue a writ of Certiorari for
quashing the charge framed by the Magistrate in CC
No.369/2016 on dated 21.06.2017, against the petitioner
pending before the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC-II Court
Bidar, which is at Annexure J1.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.
2. The petitioners have sought for quashing of entire proceedings in C.C. No.369/2016. The police have laid a charge sheet against the accused persons/ petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Section 143, 323, 341, 504 and 506 R/w Section 149 of IPC on the allegations that on 20.08.2015 at about 14.30 hours, all the accused persons/petitioners herein abused the complainant/first informant as bastard and also threatened him with dire consequences, assaulted him on his forehead and left elbow and caused injuries to him and also assaulted the other witnesses who came to rescue Cw-1-complainant herein. On these allegations, charge sheet has been filed. Though the learned counsel proceed to this Court on the ground that, the complainant himself has stated that, the police have rescued him. However, the police report shows that his statement was recorded in the hospital on receiving MLC report from another police. This Court, cannot at this stage, 4 draw any inference on the basis of such information, even if there is no full proof that, the whole case of the prosecution is false.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners also tried to persuade this Court that the matter is of civil in nature. The parties are fighting for their rights before the Civil Court, similar case of civil dispute is there between the parties. If there is any criminal activities are alleged that, has to be tried by the criminal Court only looking to the material available on record. This Court cannot, at this stage, find out any truth or falsehood in the charge sheet, it is not wise to quash the entire proceedings, at this stage, as the said exercise has to be done during the trial.
4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners drawn the attention of this Court that, the trial Court has wrongly framed charges under Section 364 by altering the earlier charges without even passing any orders under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. Therefore the said order requires to be quashed.
5
5. On careful perusal of the entire order sheet of the trial Court, the trial Court has framed the charges earlier dated 06.01.2017, for the offences under section 143, 323, 341, 504 and 506 R/w Section 149 of IPC.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed an application on 12.04.2017, under section 216 of Cr.P.C. for alteration of charges requesting the Court to frame charges under Section 364 of IPC. The trial Court even without hearing other side nor passing any order on the application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. has directly jumped to frame charges against the accused for the offences under Section 364 of Cr.P.C., which order is against the principles of natural justice. It is to be borne in mind that the Court has pointed out by the Court to examine the entire material on record and to give its finding as to how Section 364 is attracted so as to frame the charges against the accused. Such exercise has not been done by the trial Court in this case, therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, the said framing of the charges for the offences under section 364 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 21.06.2017 is bad in law 6 and the same is liable to be quashed. However, it is left open to the learned Magistrate to hear both the parties and peruse the entire charge sheet papers and then apply its judicial mind before passing order under Section 364 of Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecutor.
7. With these observations, the petition is partly allowed, quashing the order dated 21.06.2017 and in framing the charges for the offences under Section 364 and consequently committal of the case to the Sessions Court dated 11.08.2017, is also quashed. Consequently, C.C. No.369/2016 stands restored on the file of learned first Additional JMFC-II Court, Bidar, to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. If the records are already transmitted to the Court of Sessions, the Sessions Court has to send back the records to the Court of concerned JMFC Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR