Karnataka High Court
Nagesh S/O Ningappa Barki, vs State Of Karnataka, on 19 July, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10078/2012
BETWEEN:
Nargesh
S/o Ningappa Barki Court
Age: 32 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Nagnur
Tq/Dt. Haveri. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri Shivasai M.Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Haveri Police Station
Rep.by S.P.P.
High Court Circuit Bench
Dharwad.
2
2. Smt. Vijay Laxmi claiming to be
W/o Nagesh Barki
Age: 21 years
Occ: Tailor
R/o Basaveshwarnagar
A Block, 17th Cross,
Haveri,
Tq/Dist: Haveri. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Government Pleader for R1)
This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to stay all the further proceedings
in pending case in C.C.No.13/2009 of the File of Principal Senior
Civil Judge and C.J.M., Haveri.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court made
the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this court on two counts. Firstly, that the court below has proceeded to alter the charges on an application 3 by the prosecution under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC' for brevity) and secondly, that an offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for brevity) has been alleged, even though the ingredients of such an offence are not made out, in that, the details of any marriage of the petitioner illegally with another, has not been stated. Therefore, the proceedings are vitiated on those two counts.
3. Insofar as the first contention that the alteration of charges was irregular or illegal cannot be countenanced, as Section 216 of the Cr.PC, provides ample power to the court, in its discretion, to alter or add to the charges at any stage of the proceedings before pronouncement of judgment. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, the allegation would only remain an allegation till such time the charge is established beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution. Hence, even if there was a vague allegation, it would not be a ground for quashing of the 4 proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.PC., for the reason that if the allegation is rebutted, it should lead to a position where the petitioner cannot be convicted. On the other hand, if the allegation is unrebutted, the petitioner would definitely suffer a conviction.
In that view of the matter, the burden is on the prosecution to establish the case at the trial. There is no ground made out to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv 5