Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1819 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Sagana Setty S/o Late Sri Sidda Setty Age: 51 years Occ: Agriculture R/o. Siragunda Village Mugthihalli Post Taluk and District Chickmagalur – 577 133.
AND:
(By Sri R. B. Deshpande - Advocate) …Petitioner 1. Jayakumar S/o not known to petitioner Age: 58 years Occ: Forester Mattavara Range Chickmagalur Taluk Presently at Aldur Range R/o Srinivas Nagar Rampur Chickmagalur Taluk – 577 101.
2. Revanna S/o not known to petitioner Age: 55 years Occ: Forest Guard Sargod Beat Aldur Range Presently at Hospet Range R/o Srinivas Nagar Rampur Chickmagalur Taluka – 577101.
3. Ramesh S/o Not known to petitioner Age: 40 years Occ: Forest Guard Sargod Beat Aldur Range Presently at Mattavara Range R/o Srinivas Nagar Rampur Chickmagalur Taluk – 577101.
...Respondents (Respondents are served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set-aside order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru in C.C.No.844/2007 and the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl. R.P.No.268/2013 and restore the case of the petitioner on its file before the trial court.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission,, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Respondents are served and unrepresented.
2. Petitioner filed a private complaint before the Principal Civil Judge at Chikmagalur seeking action under Sections 141, 143, 149, 323, 441, 447, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and one witness. During the sworn statement, Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. Considering this material, the trial Court found that the complainant has not made out a prima facie case for proceeding against the respondents and further, the trial Court was of the view that the respondents herein being the Government officials serving in Forest Department, had acted in discharge of their duty at the relevant time and for want of prior sanction as required under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, discharged the respondents under Section 245 of Cr.P.C.
4. Petitioner challenged the said order before the I Additional Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru. By order dated 29.01.2016 in Crl.Rev.Petn.No.268/2013, the revisional Court affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner/complainant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. A reading of the averments made in the sworn statement and the documents filed by the complainant clearly indicate that the alleged incident had taken place on 23.06.2005. According to the petitioner while he was returning to his house after finishing his work, the respondents along with other persons came from back side in a jeep and dashed against the bicycle of the petitioner/complainant. Thereafter, they abused him in filthy language, assaulted him with hands, pushed him to the floor and kicked him. He has stated in his statement that in respect of this incident, a complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police on 24.06.2005. But the Superintendent of Police did not take any action on the complaint. During his evidence, the complainant has produced two wound certificates as per Exs.P14 and P15. Ex.P15 is the wound certificate issued by Mallegowda Hospital in respect of the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the complainant on 23.6.2005. It discloses that during the occurrence petitioner has sustained three simple injuries. These documents, therefore, clearly reveal that prima facie material was produced before the Court in proof of the occurrence as well as the involvement of the respondents in the alleged incident. Under the said circumstance, both the Courts below have committed a serious error in discharging the accused on the purported ground that the material produced by the complainant is discrepant and the same does not prima facie make out an offence. The learned Magistrate has also erred in observing that the alleged occurrence has taken place during the discharge of duties by the officials. The alleged incident cannot be said to have been a part of the duties performed by the respondents. As a matter of fact, such a contention was not taken before the learned Magistrate. Merely because the respondents happened to be the Forest officials, the learned Magistrate could not have presumed that the alleged act was performed by them was during the discharge of their duties. In that view of the matter, both the courts have committed an error in discharging the accused persons of the above offences. Though the averments made in the sworn statement and the materials produced before the Court do not disclose the ingredients of Sections 141, 143 and 149 of IPC, however, in respect of offences under Sections 323, 441, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC there are clear materials. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru in C.C.No.844/2007 and the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.Rev.Petn. No.268/2013 are quashed. The matter is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to proceed against the accused for the offences under Sections 323, 441, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Next >