IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.128/2019 BETWEEN:
K.V. BIRESHA S/O K.H. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA KUKKANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562 123 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.P.JAYASIMHA, ADV.) AND:
1. CHANNAMMA D/O LATE HUCHAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA KUKKANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562 123 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DIST.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2018 IN C.C.NO.336/2013 P/U/S 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF I.P.C. AGAINST PETITIONER AND OTHER, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R 1. Notice to respondent no.1 stands dispensed with, since she had not opposed or supported the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor before the trial court.
2. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records including the Statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Police during the course of investigation which is made available to this Court today would clearly indicate that the allegation made against the petitioner is that he was standing outside the house of the complainant. In fact, the Statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. would disclose that petitioner-accused was not present at the scene of occurrence. Be that as it may. The complainant, who has been examined as PW.1, in her examination in chief also states that petitioner had stood outside her house and when her daughter came, he abused her in foul language, except this bald and vague allegation there is no overt act imputed to the petitioner so as to attract the provisions of Sections 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to implicate the petitioner as accused no.3 is without any basis and said application has been erroneously allowed on the ground that petitioner was also present with other accused who had committed the offences as complained of though he was not. Even otherwise, mere presence of petitioner even accepted to be true would not implicate him of the offences alleged and the entire allegation in the complaint as well as overt acts alleged by the complainant is against accused nos.1 & 2 who are already facing prosecution. In that view of the matter, learned trial Judge committed a serious error in allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for adding petitioner as accused no.3.
3. Hence, the following order:
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 23.11.2018 passed by the trial court issuing notice on the said application to the petitioner was not called for and said application stands rejected.
(iii) No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.