Karnataka High Court Mr Vijay Hegde vs State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2014Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.89/2014 BETWEEN:
S/O LATE SRI SADASHIVA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
MANDARTHI POST, UDUPI TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.T.S.AMAR KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.LAWYERS INC., ADVOCATES)
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION
2. SMT.MAITHRI P. SHETTY
W/O PRASHANTH KUMAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
D/O M KESHENDRA HEGDE
C/O M MAHESH HEGDE
‘DEEPA’, ANKADAKATTE, POST: HANGLUR KOTESHWARA VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2013, PASSED IN C.C.No.814/2005, ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT KUNDAPURA & ETC.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in C.C.No.814/2005, pending trial for offences punishable under sections 498A & 506(2) r/w 149 IPC. Accused No.4 is the distant relative of husband of II-respondent. He had pleaded for discharge.
3. The learned Magistrate has held under section 239 Cr.P.C., court has to consider the police report and documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has held that ‘term’ used in section 239 Cr.P.C., is only in the sense of allegation or accusation. At this stage of proceedings, elaborate examination of 3
statements recorded during police investigation is not warranted. At this stage of the proceedings, the court can only go into police report and the documents filed along with police report. The learned Magistrate had issued notice to complainant for the purpose of sending the case to Mediation Centre. The complainant appeared before court and expressed her willingness to proceed with the case as she is re-married. The learned Magistrate has held that material on record prima facie shows sufficient material to frame charge against accused No.4 (petitioner herein) and the application was rejected.
4. In my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate should have considered the documents filed under section 173(5) Cr.P.C., with reference to each of accused as the final report was filed against accused 1 to 9. The final report was filed not only against the husband and in-laws of II- respondent, but also against distant relatives of husband. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate should have considered the documents filed under section 173(5) Cr.P.C. 4
with reference to allegations made against accused No.4 (petitioner herein). Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
5. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER
The revision petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to learned Magistrate with a direction to reconsider the application in accordance with law.