Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka, on 29 May, 2017

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101564/2016

BETWEEN:

1. RAMESH
S/O SHIVANANDAPPA GADAAD,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
R/O: EARLIER RESIDING AT
MIG 528, 16TH CROSS,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
AT HUBBALLI,
DITRICT: DHARWAD.0

2. VEERAMMA
W/O SHIVANANDAPPA GADAAD,
AGE: 72 YEARS,
R/O: HOUSE NO.9/3/242/129
NEAR BCM BOYS HOSTEL,
GANAGER NAGAR, KOPPAL,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL.

3. BASAVARAJ
S/O SHIVANANDAPPA GADAAD,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
R/O: HOUSE NO.9/3/242/129
NEAR BCM BOYS HOSTEL,
GANAGER NAGAR, KOPPAL,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
:2:

4. SHILPA D/O JADAPPA ANGADDI,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
R/O: DEVASUMUDRA VILLAGE,
TALUK: HOSAPETE,
DISTRICT: BALLARI.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY ADVOCATE.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
HUBLI NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.

2. SMT.JAYALAXMI
W/O RAMESH GADAAD,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
R/O: MIG 528,
16TH CROSS, NAVANAGAR,
NOW RESIDING AT ASHRAY COLONY,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRE NAIK, HCGP FOR R1
BY SRI. I.Y. PATIL ADVOCATE FOR R2.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASHING OF THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDING IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 72 OF 2015 ON THE
FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HUBBALLI, FILED
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR OFFENCE
:3:

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 323, 504, 506 READ
WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC, BY ALLOWING THIS
CRIMINAL PETITION WITH COST THROUGHOUT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Though this matter is listed for admission, with

the consent of both sides, it is taken up for final

disposal.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-

accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court

READ  Dharaben Hardikbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 29 June, 2017

to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.72/2015 on

the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, filed

against the petitioners herein for the offence under

Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC

by allowing this petition with cost.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 and the

learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, so
:4:

also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent

No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has

submitted that charge sheet was filed only against

accused No.1 making the allegation that he committed

the alleged offence under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506

read with Section 34 of IPC, but subsequently, the

prosecution filed the application under Section 319 of

Cr.P.C. praying the Court to implead accused Nos.2 to 4

in the case as accused persons. He has also submitted

that accused Nos.2 to 4 suo-motu appeared before the

Court in the proceeding, filed objection statement and

opposed the application; after hearing both sides, the

trial Court by an order dated 08.07.2014 dismissed the

said application. Again the prosecution has filed one

more application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

requesting the Court to implead the proposed accused

Nos.2 to 4 as accused in the case. In view of the said
:5:

application, trial Court issued notice to the proposed

accused Nos.2 to 4. In view of issuance of said notice

on the second application filed under Section 319 of

Cr.P.C., present petition has been filed seeking

quashing of the proceedings in respect of accused No.1

as well as accused Nos.2 to 4. Hence, submitted to

allow the petition and to quash the entire proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.2/complainant during the course of his arguments

has submitted that when the earlier order was passed,

READ  Kantilal Martaji Pandor vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 25 July, 2013

the evidence of all other witnesses were not recorded, it

was on the basis of the examination-in-chief of

P.W.1/complainant, the trial Court made the

observation and ultimately dismissed the said

application. He has also submitted that dismissal of the

earlier application was not on merits. Sofar as second

application is concerned, the trial Court has not yet

allowed the said application ordering to implead
:6:

accused Nos.2 to 4 as accused in the said case, but only

notice has been issued on the said application and

hence, that they can very well appear before the trial

Court and they can bring about the earlier order to the

trial Court. Therefore, he has submitted that entire

proceedings cannot be quashed.

6. Learned HCGP, during the course of his

arguments, has submitted that sofar as accused

No.1/husband is concerned, prima-facie case has been

made out by the prosecution and there is sufficient

material and hence, it is not a case for quashing of

proceedings by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. So far as

accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, there is an

opportunity for them to appear before the concerned

trial Court and submit their say, as the order is not yet

passed on the said application.

7. I have perused the grounds urged in the

petition and other documents, which are produced, i.e.,
:7:

charge sheet material, earlier order passed and the

deposition of P.W.1.

8. Looking to the earlier order dated

08.07.2014, the trial Court referred the oral evidence

i.e., examination-in-chief of P.W.1/complainant and

after considering the said application, the trial Court

has dismissed the said application filed by the

prosecution. But when the second application was filed

under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the Court ordered for

issue of notice to the proposed accused Nos.2 to 4 on

READ  An Application For Bail Under ... vs In Re: Raju Dutta & Anr on 3 August, 2017

02.05.2016, so the matter was posted for further

evidence by issuing summons to C.W.6; but while

ordering for issue of notice on the application filed

under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., it has not made any

reference to the earlier order dated 08.07.2014.

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners herein is

justified in making the submission that the trial Court

ought to have referred to the earlier order before passing
:8:

an order for issue of notice on the application filed

under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the order dated

02.05.2016 passed by the trial Court sofar it relates to

issuance of notice to proposed accused Nos.2 to 4, is

not in accordance with law and it is also not in

reference to earlier order dated 08.07.2014. Therefore,

it will not sustain in law.

9. Sofar as the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners that the entire criminal

proceedings are to be quashed i.e., criminal proceedings

even in respect of accused No.1, cannot be accepted at

this stage because the evidence has already commenced

and recording of evidence has been started by the trial

Court.

10. Hence, petition is partly allowed; the

issuance of notice by the trial Court on the application

filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to the proposed

accused Nos.2 to 4 by an order dated 02.05.2016 is
:9:

hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the

concerned trial Court to take a decision in the matter by

referring to the earlier order dated 08.07.2014 and to

pass an order in accordance with law. Petition seeking

quashing of proceedings against accused No.1 is hereby

rejected.

In view of disposal of the main petition,

I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration.

Accordingly, same is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *