Karnataka High Court
Shridhar S/O Vittal Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13 t h DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11422 OF 2012
C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11330 OF 2012
IN CRL.P.11422/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. VENKTESH S/O. SRINIVAS BHAT
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAKA
R/O. MGM TEMPLE,
SHIRALI, TQ: BHATKAL
2. VIDHYADHAR S/O. VENKTESH BHAT
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAK
R/O. MGM TEMPLE,
SHIRALI, TQ: BHATKAL
3. VINOD S/O. VENKATESH BHAT
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O. MGM TEMPLE,
SHIRALI, TQ: BHATKAL
4. GOVINDARAYA S/O. SRINIVASA BHAT
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAK & BUSINESS
R/O. KONKANAKAERI SHIRALI,
:2:
TQ: BHATKAL
5. PADMANABHA S/O. SHANTA BHAT
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAK
R/O. KONKANAKAERI SHIRALI,
SHIRALLI, TQ: BHATKAL
6. SARVOTHAMA S/O. SHANTA BHAT
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAK
R/O. KONKANAKAERI SHIRALI,
TQ: BHATKAL
7. RAMACHANDRA S/O. VITTAL BHAT
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAK
R/O. KONKANAKAERI SHIRALI,
TQ: BHATKAL
8. PADMINI KOM VENKATESH BHAT
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MGM SHIRALI,
TQ: BHATKAL
9. KALAYANI KOM GOVINDARAYYA BHAT
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. KONKANAKAERI SHIRALI,
TQ: BHATKAL
10. KUM. GANGA YANE VIDYALAXMI
D/O. VENKATESH BHAT
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O. MGMSHIRALI,
TQ: BHATKAL
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. V M SHEELVANT ADV.)
:3:
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI, BHATKAL RURAL P.S.
REPTD. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD
2. D. VAMAN S/O. NARAYAN KAMAT
AGE: 65 YEARS,
R/O. 7TH CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR,
MANGALORE
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BHATKAL, DATED
11.07.2012, IN C.C.NO.1034/2007 INSOFAR AS
ALLOWING PROTEST PETITION AND ISSUING SUMMONS
TO PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147,
504, 307 & 326 R/W 149 OF IPC, PRODUCED AT
DOCUMENT NO.1.
IN CRL.P.11330/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRIDHAR S/O VITTAL BHAT
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC:RTD.EMPLOYEE
R/O: 102, ASHALYA COLONY
VIVEKANAND COLONY, BHAVANI NAGAR
KESHAVPUR, HUBLI
2. RAMESH S/O SHANTAKRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: ARCHAK
:4:
R/O: PRIEST MGM TEMPLE
SHIRALI, TALUKA: BHATKAL
3. RENUKA W/O REMESH BHAT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: PRIEST MGM TEMPLE
SHIRALI, TALUKA: BHATKAL
4. MANJUNATH S/O VASUDEV BHAT
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: RYOT & PRIST
R.O: KADLEMATH COMPOUND,
SHIRALI, TALUKA: BHATKAL
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. V M SHEELVANT ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI, BHATKAL RURAL P.S.
REPTD. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD
2. D. VAMAN S/O. NARAYAN KAMAT
AGE: 65 YEARS,
R/O. 7TH CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR,
MANGALORE
... RESPONDENTS
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, BHATKAL DATED
11.07.2012, IN C.C.NO.1034/2007 PRODUCED AT
DOCUMENT NO.1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
These criminal petitions coming on for orders
this day, the Court made the following:
:5:
O R D E R
Criminal Petition No.11330/2012 is filed by petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.12 to 15 in C.C. No.1034/2007 pending on the file of JMFC, Bhatkal. Criminal Petition No.11422/2012 is filed by Accused Nos.1 to 11 in the afore-stated case.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and I have been taken through records.
3. On the first information lodged by Respondent No.2, jurisdictional police submitted a final report against petitioners in Crl.P. No.11422/2012 (Accused Nos.1 to 11) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos.1 to 11 appeared before Court and they were enlarged on bail and case was posted for hearing before charge. :6:
4. At that juncture, Respondent No.2 (first informant) made an application under Section 302 of Code of Criminal Procedure and it was accepted by the learned Magistrate.
5. The first informant made an application to learned Magistrate for reinvestigation of Crime No.145/2006. The learned Magistrate accepted the application and directed investigating officer to reinvestigate the case registered in crime No.145/2006 vide order dated 01.07.2010. Thereafter, supplementary report was filed including an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 to 11 in addition to offences included in the final report.
6. Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition and sought for rejection of final report on the ground that petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012 :7: should have arrayed as Accused Nos.12 to 15. The learned Magistrate accepted the protest petition and rejected the charge sheet filed by Investigating Officer.
7. The petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012 were arrayed as Accused Nos.12 to 15. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 307, 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to Accused Nos.1 to 15.
8. In the meanwhile, Respondent No.2 had approached this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.1077/2007 with a grievance that learned Magistrate had not applied his mind while taking cognizance against petitioners in Crl.P. No.11422/2012. This court directed the learned Magistrate to carefully peruse the police papers and pass appropriate orders.
:8:
9. The resultant position as on today is:
(i) The final report against petitioners in Crl.P. No.11422/2012 (Accused Nos.1 to 11) has been rejected by learned Magistrate;
(ii) On the basis of protest petition, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 307 & 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 15 (petitioners in Crl.P. Nos.11330 and 11422 of 2012);
(iii) As of now, the protest petition filed by Respondent No.2 is on the file of learned Magistrate.
10. The orders passed by learned Magistrate and also applications filed by complainant present a disturbing picture of the proceedings before court below. There has been violation of :9: mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. After the final report was filed against Accused Nos.1 to 11 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 307 & 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate should have committed case to the Court of Sessions in terms of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12. If Respondent No.2 had any grievance for not including accused Nos.12 to 15 (petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012), he should have pursued the remedy available to him under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate has accepted the protest petition to reject charge-sheet thus created a void in the proceedings. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to exercise power under Section 482 : 10 : of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set right the mistakes committed by learned Magistrate pursuant to illegal orders passed by him.
13. The learned Magistrate on bare perusal of protest petition should not have issued process to petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012. Therefore, process issued to petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012 (Accused Nos.12 to 15) on the basis of protest petition cannot be sustained.
14. The final report filed against petitioners in Crl.P. No.11422/2012 (Accused Nos.1 to 11) for several offences included an offence exclusively triable by Court of sessions. The learned Magistrate should have committed case to Court of sessions against these petitioners (A1 to A11) by following provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The issuance of process to : 11 : petitioners in Crl.P. No.11422/2012 on the basis of protest petition cannot be sustained.
15. In the result, I pass the following:-
O R D E R
(i) The order made by learned Magistrate rejecting the charge sheet (final report and supplementary report) filed against Accused Nos.1 to 11 (petitioners in Crl.P. No.11422/2012) is set aside;
(ii) The learned Magistrate shall restore the final report and supplementary report and commit the case against Accused Nos.1 to 11 to court of sessions in terms of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(iii) The issuance of process to Accused Nos.12 to 15 (petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012) on the basis of protest petition filed by 2 n d respondent is set aside;: 12 :
(iv) In view of order made in Crl.P. No.11422/2012 directing the learned Magistrate to commit the case to the court of sessions against Accused Nos.1 to 11, issuance of process to Accused Nos.1 to 11 on the basis of protest memo has become infructuous;
(v) Respondent No.2 is at liberty to pursue remedy under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute petitioners in Crl.P. No.11330/2012 (Accused Nos.12 to 15);
(vi) The petitions are disposed of accordingly;
(vii) The copy of this order shall be communicated to the learned Magistrate to proceed with case as per directions contained in this order and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK/-