IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.135 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
K.A.SATISH KUMAR S/O LATE A S KRISHNASHETTY AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.63/1, GROUND FLOOR, KANAKAPURA ROAD, FACING GOVINDAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY YADAV B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHESH & CO, ADVOCATES) AND:
1 . SMT. SHEELA W/O M R MAHASWAMY , AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.63/2, 1ST FLOOR, FACING GOVINDAPPA ROAD, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI , BANGALORE-560004 2 . SRI PRANARN S/O LATE VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.63, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004 3 . SHANKAR S/O LATE VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.63, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G B MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 ) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.12.2015 PASSED BY THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J.,(CCH-63) BENGALURU IN CRL.R.P.NO.364/2015 AND RESTORE ORDER DATED 08.04.2015 PASSED BY II ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C. NO.37828/2010 OF THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWING THE APPLICATION U/S 319 OF CRPC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in Criminal Revision Petition No.364/2015 dated 11.12.2015, whereby the petition came to be allowed, consequently, setting aside the order passed by the trial court in C.C.No.37828/2010 dated 8.04.2015 wherein the trial court allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for impleadment of respondent Nos.1 to 3 to be arrayed as accused Nos.2,3 & 4 in C.C.No.37828/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 294 and 509 of IPC in Crime No.143/2010.
3. The factual matrix of this petition are as under: It is stated in the complaint that one Satish Kumar/petitioner, neighbour of accused No.1 has filed a complaint before the respondent police on 22.04.2010. Based upon the complaint the case in Crime No.143/2010 was registered. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has taken the case for investigation and secured the material documents and so also conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and laid charge sheet against accused. In the complaint it is stated that accused No.1, 2 and others are causing nuisance and also picked up quarrel with the complainant and made an attempt to assault by trespassing the house as narrated in the complaint, whereas accused No.1 also does some obscene act, by showing his organs in front of his family members and friends. These are all the allegations made in the complaint and based upon the complaint the case came to be registered in Crime No.143/2010 for the aforesaid offences. After investigating the matter thoroughly, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused and same has been reflected in the charge laid by the Investigating Officer. Subsequent to laying of charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.25201/2010, the prosecution has put on trial and examined the witnesses as PW1 to PW4. Thereafter the case has been set down for cross-examination. At that stage, the prosecutor had filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for impleadment of respondents herein being arraigned as accused Nos.2,3 & 4 for the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are certain materials against the respondent/ accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 that they were also played role in the alleged offences and the same has been established in examination-in-chief by the prosecution. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and thereafter the matter was set down for defence cross-examination. In the meanwhile, the prosecution had filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and the said application came to be allowed by the trial court in C.C.No.37828/2010 dated 08.04.2015 by considering the reasons stated in the application and impleaded the accused for facing of trial. He further submits that there are materials against the respondent/accused 2 and 4 for committing the alleged offences. Therefore, the court below in Cr.R.P.No.364/2015 has erroneously come to the conclusion by allowing the petition and setting aside the order passed by the trial court in C.C.No.37828/2010 relating to the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution for impleadment of the respondents 1 to 3 being arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4 for facing the trial.
5. He further submits that in this petition intervention is required relating to the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.364/2015 and allow this revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the revisional court as the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion and allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for impleadment of the respondents No.1 to 3 being arraigned as respondents No.2 to 4.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents has taken me through the averments made in the application filed for impleadment of accused Nos.2 to 4 along with affidavit and the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer in C.C.No.37828/2010. During the investigation, no materials have been secured by the Investigating Officer relating to role of these respondent Nos.1 to 3. Relating to the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., merely because PWs1 to 4 have been subjected to examination-in-chief on the part of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused, only upon these material witnesses are examined and there are no strong materials find a place in the record on the part of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused, but the trial court in C.C.No.37828/2010 has come to the conclusion to implead the accused No.2 to 4 considering the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and same has been set aside by the revisional court in Crl.R.P. No.364/2015. Having gone through the material during the course of investigation and so also laid charge sheet against the accused and examining the witnesses as PWs 1 to 4, they so requires for thoroughly cross-examination, unless cross examined it cannot be said that there are prima facie material against respondent/accused No.2 to 4 for impleadment and facing of trial and be secure conviction. These are all the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent and he seeks for dismissal of this criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner/complainant.
7. In this back drop of the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner so also counter of learned counsel for the respondent which stated supra are concerned, it is relevant to refer the substances of the complaint filed by the complainant in Crime No.143/2010 based upon the complaint filed by the complainant a crime came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation thoroughly and laid the charge sheet. During the investigation, the statement of witnesses recorded, so also conducted mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 294 and 509 of IPC. Subsequent to framing of charges, the prosecution has put on trial by examining the witnesses as PW1 to PW4. During trial of the case the said witnesses for the prosecution it appears that there are some materials against respondents Nos.1 to 3 be arraigned as accused 2 to 4. However, the case in C.C.No.37828/2010 is pending for cross-examination of PW1, PW4. Merely because in the examination-in-chief the witnesses states that there are certain materials relating to the role of these accused Nos.2 to 4, it cannot be said that there are strong materials find a place in the examination-in-chief on the part of the prosecution unless these witnesses subjected to test thoroughly in the cross-examination and thereafter proceed with the filing of an impleadment application as against accused No.2, 3 and 4. As the court below in Crl.R.P. No.364/2015 has rightly allowed the petition by setting aside the order of the trial court in C.C.No.37828/2010 and directed the trial court to record cross-examination of PW1 and PW4 and if there is any evidence against these respondents being arraigned as accused No.2, 3 and 4, then it can proceed against them in accordance with law.
8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons interference is called for in this petition and so also the contention made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petition filed by the petitioner said to be arraigned as complainant in Crime No.143/2010 needs to be rejected. The court below in Crl.R.P 364/2015 has rightly come to the conclusion and allowed the petition, as there are erroneous findings recorded by the trial court in C.C. NO.37828/2010. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Revision petition is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the order dated 11.12.2015 passed by the trial court in Crl. R.P.No.364/2015 on the file of LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby confirmed.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not influence in the mind of the trial court to proceed with the case against the accused in accordance with law and so also the cross-examination of pw1 & pw4.
KLY/ Sd/- JUDGE