Karnataka High Court
Duraganagouda S/O Shivanagouda Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24 T H DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101660/2019
BETWEEN
1. DURAGANAGOUDA
S/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RANKALAKOPPA, TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
2. KRISHNAVVA
W/O DURAGANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: RANKALAKOPPA, TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
3. SHIVANAGOUDA
S/O DURAGANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYED IN
PRIVATE FIRMS,
R/O: RANKALAKOPPA, TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
4. PADDAVA W/O NINGAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2
R/O: BOMMANA BUDNI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587313
5. SAVAKKA W/O LAKKAPPA MANNIAKATTI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: RANKALAKOPPA, TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI.-591123
NOW RESIDING AT: ELECTRONIC CITY,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU-560100.
... PETITIONERS
(By SHRI. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE
STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD-580007.
2. NETRAVATI D/O YALLAPPA DODDAMANI
@ NETRAVATI W/O BHARAMAGOUDA
PATIL,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
NOW AT R/O: C/O MOOLIMANI,
1 S T CROSS, SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.580007.
... RESPONDENTS
3
(By SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.S.B.ANEHATGERI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S
482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.04.2019 AND
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.SC/ST
NO.12/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A,
504, 323, 506 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(X)(S) POA
OF SC/ST ACT, 1989, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS & SPECIAL
JUDGE, DHARWAD, SOFARAS IT RELATES TO
THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED BY
ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is a petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the impugned order dated 11/4/2019 and the entire proceedings initiated in SC/ST No.12/2017 pending on the file of II Additional District and 4 Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad, for the offences punishable under Sections, 498A, 504, 323, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(X) (S) of the SC/ST PA Act 1989.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
Accused No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2 and the petitioners herein are the father- in-law, mother-in-law and other family members of accused No.1. Respondent No.2 has instituted a private complaint against her husband and petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(X) (S) of the SC/ST PA Act 1989.
4. It is stated that the said complaint was referred to jurisdictional police and after investigation, the police submitted a 'B' report 5 so far as the petitioners are concerned and charge sheet was filed against accused No.1. Accordingly, proceedings were continued against accused No.1 and the complainant was examined before the Court. She has made statement against the petitioners also involving them for the alleged offences. Therefore, public prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. seeking to implead the petitioners as accused Nos.2 to 6 in the said case.
5. The trial Court after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor issued show cause notice against the petitioners to show cause why they should not implead accused Nos.2 to 6 in the case. The petitioners have questioned the show cause notice issued against them stating that it is illegal and contrary to the provision of law. The charge sheet was filed against accused No.1 6 and the case was proceeded only against accused No.1.
6. A plain reading of the complaint does not disclose any of the alleged offences against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court issuing show cause notice to the petitioners and also the entire proceedings in Special SC ST No.12/2017 is liable to be quashed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
8. It is seen from the order sheet before the Special Court that the proceedings in the said case were taken up only against accused No.l and after framing the charge in the case, trial commenced, the complainant was examined as PW-1 in chef, at that stage, the Special Public 7 Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to implead the petitioners as accused Nos.2 to 6. The trial Court after hearing the Special Public Prosecutor by the impugned order dated 10/4/2019, issued a show cause notice to the petitioners to show cause why they should not be impleaded as additional accused in the case.
9. It is admitted that the application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not yet disposed of by the trial Court. Therefore, the present petition appears to be premature and it can not be held that petitioners are aggrieved by the show cause notice issued to them. The petitioners have an opportunity to file objections on the show cause notice and urge their grounds before the trial Court and only when the trial Court reject their 8 objection and pass the order allowing application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., it appears the petitioners have the cause of action to approach this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition has to be disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to permit the petitioners to file objections on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., hear both the parties and pass the order on said application in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with such a direction to the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vmb