IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1831 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SMT. ROOPA N.N. W/O K.S.DEEPAK, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT ATHUR NALLUR VILLAGE, MATHIKAD POST, VIA SUNTIKOPPA, TALUK SOMARPET, KODAGU-571 237.
…PETITIONER (BY SHRI G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K.S.DEEPAK S/O SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT HRP COLONY, KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 237.
2. K.G.SOMAIAH S/O GANAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT HRP COLONY, KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 237.
3. K.S.PADMAVATHI W/O K.G. SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HRP COLONY, KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 237.
4. SANTHOSH A.K., S/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.172, GUMMANAKOLLI VILLAGE, MULLUSOGE POST, KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 237.
5. JAHNAVI @ SUMA W/O SANTHOSH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.172, GUMMANAKOLLI VILLAGE, MULLUSOGE POST, KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 237.
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUSHALNAGAR POLICE, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R6 SHRI VIJAYAKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2017 IN C.C.NO.1802/2014 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUSHALANAGAR, APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PERMISSION TO ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF AN ADVOCATE FOR ASSISTING THE PROSECUTION BE ALLOWED THIS CRL.P. BY ALLOWED WITH COST THROUGHOUT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has initiated proceedings under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against respondent Nos.1 to 5. The trial is pending in C.C.No.1802/2014.
2. On 27.10.2017, petitioner filed an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C seeking permission to engage a pleader to assist the prosecution. The learned trial Judge by impugned order dated 22.12.2017 has rejected the said application. Hence, this petition.
3. Shri G.Balakrishna Shastry, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application by misconstruing the purpose of Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C and accordingly, prays for allowing this petition.
4. Shri Vijayakumar Prakash, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 in his usual fairness submits that he has no objection for appointment of a pleader to assist the prosecution on behalf of the complainant. It is further submitted that accused Nos.4 and 5 have obtained an order of stay of proceedings from this Court in Crl.P.No.7094/2015.
5. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
6. Learned trial Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on various grounds and one among them is, if the petitioner’s application were allowed, the proceedings will be delayed. A careful reading of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Judge has misconstrued the provision of Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the submission made by learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and clear language of Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C., impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
8. Hence, the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 22.12.2017 passed on the application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C filed in C.C. No.1802/2014 is set aside.
(iii) Application dated 27.10.2017 filed in C.C. No.1802/2014 by the complainant before the learned trial Judge, is allowed.
(iv) Petitioner shall be permitted to engage a pleader to assist the prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE PB