: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
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,
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
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