Karnataka High Court
Sri.Sanju @ Sanjay S/O Hanamant ... vs State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETI TION NO.101588/2019
BETWEEN
SRI.SANJU @ SANJAY S/O HANAMANT ASHIRATTI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: MASAGUPPI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(By SRI. K ANANDKUMAR, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MUDALGI PS,
REPRESENTED BY
BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. GOURAVVA W/O SHIVARAYAPPA ASHIROTTI,
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD &
AGRICULTURE,
AT: MASAGUPPI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
2
(By SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION
CONSEQUENTLY TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE &
J.M.F.C. MUDALAGI IN CC NO.694/2016, ON APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PROSECUTION IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES
THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/SEC.323, 324, 504 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION CO MING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash/set aside the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudalagi in CC No.694/2016, allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt.Gouravva Shivarayya Ashirotti filed a complaint before the respondent-police stating that on 29.08.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., when she was in the land, accused 1 to 3 came their 3 and picked up quarrel with her. They abused her in filthy language and one Mahadevi took the stone and assaulted her on her back and when her son came to the spot, he pacified the quarrel. On the basis which, case was registered against accused 1 to 3 and after investigation, respondent police filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and read with Section 34 of IPC, only against accused 1 and 2 and the petitioner was not sent up for trial. He was left out from the charge sheet. It is seen that the trial went on against accused 1 and 2. After conclusion of the trial, when the matter was posted for argument, the learned APP filed application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for impleading the petitioner as one of the accused in the said case and the trial Court after hearing the prosecution allowed the said application by the impugned order and thereby 4 now the petitioner is directed to appear in the said case as accused. The petitioner has stated that the application filed by the prosecution is unsustainable in law. The trial Court took cognizance of the alleged offences against accused 1 and 2 on the basis of the charge sheet filed the complaint. When the matter was posted for argument, the application was filed. Therefore, the impugned order allowing application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and summoning the petitioner in the said case is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.
4. The record goes to show that the complainant Gouravva Shivarayappa Ashirotti filed a complaint on 29.08.2016, wherein she 5 has stated the names of three accused persons namely Hanamant, Mahadevi and Sanju. Accordingly the name of the petitioner Sanju was also found in the FIR. However subsequently on 30.08.2016, the investigating officer has recorded further statement of the complainant Gouravva, wherein she has stated that he was not present at the incident. Therefore in view of further statement, charge sheet was not filed against the petitioner herein. When these are the admitted facts, after conclusion of the trial before the trial Court, when the matter was posted for argument on the main, the prosecution filed application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the trial Court without considering the material on record.
6
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the certificate issued by the Department of Collegiate Education dated 18.10.2016 is produced which goes to show that on the date of the alleged incident namely 29.08.2016, the petitioner Sanjay studying in BA II in the Government First Grade College, Mysore, was present in the college from 7.30 a.m. to 12.50 p.m. and the alleged incident took place on that date at about 10.00 a.m. Therefore this goes to show that the petitioner was not present at the time of alleged incident. The complainant was aware of this fact and therefore gave further statement. She has clarified that the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged incident and only on the basis of her further statement he was left out from the charge sheet.
7
Under these circumstances, the impugned order by which the petitioner has been ordered to be impleaded as accused in the said case, amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed/set aside. In the result, Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is herby allowed. The order dated 04.07.2019 in CC No.694/2016 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudalagi, allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is hereby quashed/set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGK