Karnataka High Court
Shri.Shanur Lalsab Sanamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 January, 2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
Crl. R.P. No. 100290/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SHANUR LALSAB SANAMANI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS,
R/O GOPANAKOPPA, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SMT. SAIDABI W/O MOHAMMAD ALI KUSUGAL,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O BOGENAGARAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ: KHALAGHATGI, DIST: DHARWAD.
3. SMT. MABUBI W/O MAULASAB KUSUGAL,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O BOGENAGARAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ: KHALAGHATGI, DIST: DHARWAD.
4. SMT. SAIDABI W/O MABUSAB KUSUGAL,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O BOGENAGARAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ: KHALAGHATGI, DIST: DHARWAD.
5. SHRI. FATHIMA W/O SAIDUSAB KUSUGAL,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O BOGENAGARAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ: KHALAGHATGI, DIST: DHARWAD.
6. SMT. NOORJANABI W/O RAJESAB KUSUGAL,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O BOGENAGARAKOPPA VILLAGE,
TQ: KHALAGHATGI, DIST: DHARWAD.
7. SMT. NOORJANABI W/O BABUSAB KUSUGAL,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O BOGENAGARAKOPPA VILLAGE,
:2:
TQ: KHALAGHATGI, DIST: DHARWAD.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVI S. MATTUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KALAGHATAGI P.S.
DHARWAD DISTRICT, NOW
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENT
THIS PETITION IS FILED BY THE PETITIOENRS U/S 397(1)
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 05.09.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN S.C. NO. 147/2014 ON THE
APPLICATION U/S 319 OF CR.P.C. & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition filed u/S 397(1) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by the learned II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Dahrwad wherein the application filed u/S 319 of Cr.P.C. by the prosecution came to be allowed wherein 21 accused persons were named in the FIR that was succeeded by the complainant for the offences punishable u/S 498A, 504, 306 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
:3:
2. Learned counsel Sri Ravi S Mattur appearing for the petitioners would submit that, without sufficient materials, without applying the mind and without going through the relevant materials, learned trial court judge has passed the impugned order wherein the order for impleadment of 21 accused persons whose names were reflected in the FIR by virtue of the report that was lodged by the complainant.
3. The learned trial judge passes the impugned order for issuing process to the said accused persons and the present petition is by those 21 persons questioning the same.
4. In a criminal case the question for consideration of different stages wherein the materials are assessed with reference to yardstick on each stage in a varied manner. The appreciation of evidentiary value differs from one stage to another, like at the time of disposing bail application, taking cognizance, disposing interlocutory application and disposal of the main :4: matter. However, the proceeding would start accused person only upon taking cognizance of the case u/S 319 of Cr.P.C. In this connection, Sec. 319 of Cr.P.C. is extracted.
319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.
---
5. The Court takes cognizance of the offences and not the offenders. Sufficient evidence to take cognizance cannot be considered as those offences are sufficient to dispose of the matter on merits. The scope of summoning a person in the middle of the trial by :5: exercising powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to facilitate effective and complete disposal of the trial. Every enactment has its object. Further, every provision in the statute are in aid and main object of Sec. 319 of Cr.P.C. furthers the principles that Court takes cognizance of the offences and not the offender.
6. It is not uncommon that there are umpteen examples wherein the criminal cases are based purely on public documents. And more glance may explain who are all privy to the offence despite being left out. The hall mark of the procedural law is to ensure full and fair opportunity is given to the accused, whether such person is the accused who is named from the beginning or summoned midway.
7. In the circumstances, prima facie the order passed by the learned trial Judge does not appear to be infirm, irregular nor takes away the legal rights vested in the :6: petitioners. It has become a trend for the IOs that at the time of submitting final report not to give importance to column no. 13 of the charge sheet, that provides for the list of names of the accused persons who are not sent for trial.
8. Regard being had to the fact that the names are reflected in the complaint. However, no application of mind in the instant case is made. Basics of criminal jurisprudence would suggest deleted by exonerating 21 accused persons and regard being had to the fact that no reasons are assigned in column No. 17 of the final report. It was not proper for the I.O. to delete the names and not assigning reasons giving regard to transparencies.
9. In this case, IO without responsibility has entered the domain of jurisdiction of the court and literally passes the order of dropping a charge. The lapse on the part of the IO in not assigning reasons and in this :7: connection it is not the petitioners who are asked to appear before the Court u/S 319 of cr.P.C. to face trial.
SD/-
JUDGE bvv