IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.724/2013 BETWEEN D K THULSAMMA D/O VEERABADRAARADHYA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O NAGARATHPET CHINTAMANI TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563125. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S. VENKATESHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. G. SRINIVAS S/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O. KISHORA NILAYA ANJANI EXTENSION, 1ST DIVISION CHINTAMANI TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563125 2. N. G. SAIBABA @ N. G. SAINATH S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O VENKATESHWARA EXTENSION 1ST DIVISION, CHINTAMANI TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563125 3. SYED ELIAZ S/O SYED AKBAR SAB AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O OPPOSITE TO PRAGATHI COLLEGE, M. G. ROAD, SOUTH SIDE 1ST DIVISION CHINTAMANI TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563125 4. SHIVANNA S/O M. NARAYANAPPA @ KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O BUKKANAHALLI VILLAGE KOTHURU POST, AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563125 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK J, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2012 IN CRL.RP.NO.81/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND THIS PETITION BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in Criminal Revision Petition No.81/2012, whereby learned Sessions Judge has stayed the operation and execution of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.610/2012 dated 03.11.2012.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without making the petitioner a party to the revision petition, the trial Court ought not to have entertained the said revision petition and should not have granted interim order without issuing notice to the complainant. The contention merits acceptance. The petitioner being the complainant before the Magistrate Court is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Sessions Judge. He was a necessary party to the revision petition; hence, without making him as a party, respondent could not have filed the revision petition, challenging the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate. To that extent, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.11.2012 is set-aside. The respondents are directed to implead the petitioner as respondent No.2 in the revision petition within 15 days from today. Until then, the operation of the order dated 03.11.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate shall be stayed.
PYR Sd/- JUDGE