Karnataka High Court
Sindhu vs State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.375/2016
BETWEEN
Sindhu
D/o Lakshminarasimhaiah
Aged 24 years
Occupation: Student
R/a RNS Institute of
Technology Girls Hostel
Channasandra
Bengaluru-560 098.
Permanent R/o. No.81
(Katha No.377, Asst. No.482
Property No.451), 8th Cross
Marigowda Layout
Kyathumgere, Near
Channel Extn., Mandya
Taluk & District
Pin - 571 401. .. Petitioner
(By Sri Pavan Sagar for Sri Prasanna Kumar, Advocates)
2
AND
1. State of Karnataka
By Mandya Rural Police Station
Mandya Rural Circle
District Mandya
Represented by State
Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Dr.B R Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Smt.Radha
W/o Sri Chikkasiddha
Aged 35 years
Occupation:Household Work
r/a No.82, 8th Cross
Marigowda Layout
Kyathumgere
Near Channel Extn.,
Mandya Taluk and District
Pin - 571 401. .. Respondents
(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1,
Sri D S Hosmath, Advocate for R2 (absent))
This Crl.P is filed U/s. 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the
order dated 23.7.2015 passed by the learned JMFC, Mandya in
CC No.674/2015 thereby taking cognizance against the
petitioner/accused No.4 for the offences under Section 448,
324, 323, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and ordering to
register a criminal case and issuance of summons and
consequently quash the entire proceedings pending thereon as
against the petitioner/accused No.4.
This Criminal Petition coming on for final hearing this
day, the court made the following:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying to quash the order dated 23.7.2015 passed by the learned JMFC, Mandya in CC No.674/2015 thereby taking cognizance against the petitioner/accused No.4 for the offences under Sections 448, 324, 323, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case of the complainant that the complaint came to be filed on 27.11.2014 stating that herself and her husband and daughters are staying in the house and at that time, her sister-in-law Siddamma, Kalavathi, Srinivas and Sindhu all of a sudden trespassed into the said house and told the complainant and other members that the house belongs to them and asked them to go out of the house. They have assaulted her and her husband and her children with club and hands. The complainant's husband sustained injury to the lower limb 4 and at the same time, Srinivas held her hand and dragged her. Therefore, she requested the police that they should not give any sort of trouble to the complainant and asked to make arrangement for her stay in the said house and also requested to take appropriate legal action against the accused persons.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered in Crime No.614/2014 for the offences under Sections 448, 323, 324, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. It is also submitted by both the side that now the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner/accused No.4 filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC seeking to discharge him from the proceedings. But, the Court below by passing the order rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application, 5 petitioner/accused No.4 is before this Court in this petition and he has challenged the legality and correctness of the said order on the grounds that have been made in this petition at paragraphs-11 to 18.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.4 so also the learned Additional SPP for the 1st respondent/State.
6. I have perused the complaint, FIR and also copy of the plaint in OS No.215/2015 and written statement copy. The order dated 3.12.2015 passed by the Trial Court in CC No.674/2015 reads as under:
"Accused No.13 present. Accused No.4 absent.
EP filed. HBC No grounds made out for discharge for O/C Call on 28.12."
7. Looking to the said order, the same is not a speaking order. No reasons are assigned by the Trial Court for refusing to discharge the accused person from the proceedings, which substantially affects the 6 opportunity of the accused person of having heard before framing of charge. Hearing before charge is an important stage. Therefore, the Court must apply the mind to all the materials available on record and then to pass an order. The cryptic order has been passed by the Trial Court without mentioning the details and the reasons for refusing to discharge. Therefore, the order will not sustain and the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to consider the aspect regarding hearing before charge by hearing both sides and to pass an order with detail reasons.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Office is directed to remit the matter to the concerned Court below.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018 stands disposed of.
[ Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm.