IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8502 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
P.PURANDHARA REDDY S/O. LATE CHINNATHAMBI REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT. NO.57/52 FLAT NO.1, GROUND FLOOR 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT B.G.COMFORTS ENCLAVE 7TH MAIN, BENGALURU – 560 076. … PETITIONER (BY SRI OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALUR POLICE STATION MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.
2. GUNAALAN S SUB-REGISTRAR MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DVN) AND J.M.F.C. MALUR, WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 319 OF CR.P.C., AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER (ACCUSED No.9) IN C.C.NO.331/2010 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 465 READ WITH SECTION 120(B) OF I.P.C.
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 Additional SPP for respondent No.1.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Malur on the application filed by respondent - Police under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
3. A perusal of the order indicates that the aforesaid order has been passed without affording an opportunity to the accused before impleading him in the proceedings contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Crl.R.P.231/2016 whereby placing reliance on the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JOGENDRA YADAV & OTHERS VS.
STATE OF BIHAR (AIR 2015 SC 2951) it is held that whenever a person is sought to be summoned as an additional accused in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., not only prior notice calling upon him to show cause is to be issued, but also the judge dealing with the case has to take extra caution to satisfy himself/herself that a stronger evidence exists as the basis for taking such action.
4. Since the learned Magistrate has failed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the accused before impleading him in the array of accused and having passed the impugned order without arriving at the satisfaction that is required in terms of Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Malur in C.C.No.331/2010 is quashed. Matter is remitted to the trial Court for consideration of the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., afresh in the light of the principles laid down in the above decision and dispose of the same after affording appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
In order to expedite the proceedings, parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 29.07.2019.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR