IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6026 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SMT MEENAKSHAMMA W/O K. SHRIDHARA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT KODALA VILLAGE NARAYANAPURA POST PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, PIN-571 455 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. M.R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE PANDAVAPURA- 571 455 MANDYA 2. SRI RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMME GOWDA R/AT KODALA VILLAGE NARAYANAPURA POST PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT PIN: 571 455 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R.1; SHRI. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2013 AND SUBSEQUENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA IN S.C.NO.27/2009.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Respondent No.2 – complainant filed FIR No.258/2007 in Pandavpura Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner and others. Police, after investigation have filed the charge sheet in the Court of learned Sessions Judge.
2. Heard Shri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri Nasuralla Khan, learned HCGP for the State and Shri Nagendra Naik, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that learned Sessions Judge recorded the evidence before framing charge and thereafter framed the charge without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to argue before charge. He submits that this procedure is impermissible in law. He placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs. State of Jharkhand and another1.
4. Learned HCGP for the State and learned advocate for respondent No.2, in their usual fairness, do not dispute the position of law.
5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
6. Learned Sessions Judge has recorded the evidence before framing the charges against the petitioner and others on 12.09.2013. This is impermissible in law. It is settled that the charges shall be framed after giving an opportunity to the accused to argue before charge.
7. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. Order dated 12.09.2013 in S.C.No.27/2009 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, is set-aside so far as framing charges 1 (2009) 14 SCC 115 against the petitioner is concerned and the matter is remitted to learned Sessions Judge with a direction to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to argue before charge.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV