Karnataka High Court
Sri Prashanth Kumar K N vs State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2020
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.850 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Sri Prashanth Kumar K.N.,
S/o. Sri Narayanappa,
Aged 30 years,
Officer, Canara Bank
Old Post Office Road,
Bethamangala
District: Chikkaballapur-563 116
... Petitioner
(By Sri Veeranna G. Tigadi, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka,
Represented by the
Inspector of Police,
Bagepalli Police Station
District: Chikkaballapur-561 207
... Respondent
(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order
dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Civil Judge and
2
J.M.F.C., Bagepalli in C.C.No.316/2010 allowing the
application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecution
Under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and summoning him as accused No.2.
This Petition coming on for Admission, on this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.07.2015 passed in C.C. No.316/2010 by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial magistrate, Bagepalli (hereinafter referred as 'trial Court'), summoning the petitioner as accused, by allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., filed by the prosecution.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. The case of the petitioner is that one Nandeeshwara, the Manager of Canara Bank, Bagepalli 3 Branch filed a complaint against three accused persons including this petitioner showing as accused No.2. The same has been registered by the police in Crime No.82/2009 for the offence under Section 120(B), 405 and 409 of Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Subsequently, the Investigation Officer after the investigation filed the charge sheet only against accused Nos.1 and 3 and dropped the name of this petitioner , who was arraigned as accused No.2 in FIR. After taking cognizance against accused No.1 and 3, the charge was framed. It is also the case of the petitioner that after framing of charge, accused No.1 filed an application for his discharge from the case, which was rejected by the trial Court. Latter in the revision petition, the Sessions Judge has allowed the revision and set aside the said order and discharged accused No.1. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined the complainant - Manager as PW1 and after recording part of the 4 examination-in-chief of PW1, at the request of the APP the further examination-in-chief has been deferred and meanwhile the APP filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., for summoning this petitioner who was shown as accused No.2 in FIR and his name was dropped by the Investigation Officer in the charge-sheet and the I.A. came to be allowed and the trial Court summoned this petitioner. The same is challenged before this Court by accused No.2.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- accused contended that the trial Court committed an error in allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Even the evidence of PW1- complainant has not been completed and statement of witnesses shows that this petitioner has not committed any offence, therefore, the Investigation Officer dropped his name from the charge-sheet. Without fully 5 examining the evidence of PW.1 and other charge-sheet witnesses, the trial Court jumped into conclusion that this petitioner has involved in the offence and committed the alleged offences. Therefore, he submits that summoning this petitioner as accused No.2 is not sustainable under law and hence, prayed for setting aside the same.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State contended that in the FIR the name of this petitioner clearly stated as this petitioner himself and accused No.3 were delayed and withholding the cheque which was in their custody. He submitted that the complainant categorically stated the fact in his complaint and also in his examination-in-chief. Therefore, summoning the petitioner-accused No.2 is sustainable in law and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6
6. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records and the charge-sheet material produced by the counsel for the petitioner, the contents of evidence of PW1-complainant show the involvement of name of this petitioner as accused No.2. Further, admittedly the name of this petitioner is shown in the FIR as accused No.2. But subsequently the Investigation Officer has recorded further statement of the complainant on 24.05.2009, wherein the very PW1 in his further statement has stated that due to misconception he has included the name of this petitioner-accused No.2 even though he was not connected to the crime. That apart, the statement of another charge-sheet witness namely Shantadevi also shows that this petitioner was not involved in the offence. Such being the case, the trial Court ought to have examined PW1 in full and also examined some more witnesses in order to come to the 7 conclusion whether this petitioner was involved in the offence or not. PW1 himself has given further statement before the Investigation Officer that this petitioner was not involved in the commission of offence. Such being the case, the evidence recorded by the trial Court in respect of PW1 was in part and marked only copy of the complaint as Ex.P1 and not examined him in full. Therefore, without examining the evidence of PW1 in full and examining any other witnesses the trial Court committed error in coming to any conclusion about the involvement of this petitioner in the alleged offence. Therefore, on this ground, the order passed by the trial Court shall have to be set aside.
7. That apart, it is also an admitted fact that accused No.1, who is said to be issued the cheque in favour of the LIC, which was dishonoured, has been discharged by the Sessions Judge and that was not challenged by 8 the prosecution. Therefore, the order under revision cannot be sustained under law. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court dated 28.07.2015 in C.C. No.316/2010 allowing the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the prosecution is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to examine the evidence of PW1 in full and other witness, then the liberty to proceed to consider application, if any positive evidence is available against any of the accused and then summon this petitioner if required.
8. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed. The I.A. under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., is kept in abeyance until examining some of the witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*