IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1973 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SMT. RAMAKKA W/O. LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.74 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS SHUSHRUTHI NAGAR BASAPURA, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU – 560 100 SUB-REGISTRAR, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU (BY SHRI MANJUNATH K.V. ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY S.P.P HIGH COURT BANGALORE – 560001 2. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O. LATE NEELAKANTASHASTRI …PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT M.KARENAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA – 562 159 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:17.01.2019 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3321/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 17.01.2019, whereby, the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by Assistant Public Prosecutor to include the petitioner as accused No.3 has been allowed.
2. Shri Manjunath A.V., learned advocate for the petitioner argued that the impugned order does not disclose application of mind. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this petition.
3. Shri Nasrulla Khan, learned HCGP argued in support of the impugned order.
4. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
5. The order dated 17.01.2019 reads as follows:
“A.1 & A.2 present. A3 present.
Taken objection not filed.
Hence, heard the application U/s.319 of Cr.P.C. proposed accused impleaded as Accused No.3-Smt. Ramakka, Sub-Registrar Vijayanagar, Sub-Registrar as A.3, Addl. Charge by 1/2.”
6. Admittedly, the impugned order does not disclose any reasons for allowing the application filed by Assistant Public Prosecutor to include petitioner as accused No.3 in the criminal proceedings.
7. Inclusion of any citizen as an accused in a criminal case entails him to undergo the ordeal of prosecution. An order directing inclusion of any person as accused has to be passed with proper application of mind and the same must reflect in the order. The impugned order is a cryptic order and does not disclose application of mind. Hence, it is not sustainable in law for want of reasons.
8. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 17.01.2019 in C.C No.3321/2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, is set aside and the matter remitted to the learned Magistrate to reconsider the application on merits and pass fresh orders.
In view of disposal of this petition, I.A.No.1/19 does not survive of consideration and the same is also disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ