IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4102/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVA VALLABHANENI WRONGLY MENTIONED AS SHIVA VALLABHANENI @ SRI. NITHYA SACHITANANDA IN THE CHARGE SHEET S/O SATHYANARAYANA MURTHY AGED 54 YEARS WRONGLY STATED AS R/O NITHYANANDA DHYANAPEETA KALLUGOPANAHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109 RESIDING AT ESTEEM HERITAGE PEARL 203 3/7, ROSE GARDEN ROAD J.P.NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. P. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BIDADI POLICE STATION REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPL. P.P.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2018, PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR UNDER SECTIONS 215 AND 216 OF CR.PC IN S.C.NO.86/2014.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.11.2018, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THIS COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This petition is presented by accused No.3 in S.C.No.86/2014 on the file of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, challenging order dated 28.05.2018, allowing Public Prosecutor’s application under Sections 215 and 216 of Cr.P.C. and correcting Section 212 as Section 201 found in the operative portion of the order dated 19.02.2018.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, Police, after investigation in Crime No.141/2010 registered in Bidadi Police Station, Ramanagara Taluk and District, filed charge sheet alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 201, 114 and 120-B of IPC against petitioner. Learned Trial Judge took cognizance of offences on 10.09.2014. Petitioner filed an application seeking discharge before the learned Sessions Judge and it was dismissed on 19.02.2018. Petitioner and other accused challenged the said order in Crl.R.P.No.211/2018 and connected cases. This Court by order dated 16.05.2018 dismissed the said petitions.
3. On 28.05.2018, the Special Public Prosecutor filed an application under Sections 215 and 216 of Cr.P.C., to correct offence alleged against petitioner as Section 201 instead of Section 212 as recorded in paragraph No.82 of order dated 19.02.2018 and the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the same. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard Shri Ravi B.Naik, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
5. Shri Ravi B.Naik submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, in his order dated 19.02.2018 has held that there are materials to frame charges under Sections 212 and 120-B of IPC against the petitioner. The said order was challenged before this Court and also Apex Court. The impugned order amounts to nullifying the orders passed by this Court and the Apex Court. In case, the prosecution was desirous of seeking any amendment, it ought to have approached the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the instant application is not maintainable and accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.
6. Opposing the petition, Shri Chouta, submitted that Trial Court took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The said order was challenged before this Court by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.957/2011. This Court by a common order dated 16.07.2014 dismissed the said petition along with Crl.P.No.234/2011 and two other cases. Petitioner and other accused challenged the said common order before the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.5844/2014 and connected cases which were also dismissed on 03.09.2014. He contended that in the body of the order dated 19.02.2018, while dismissing the application seeking discharge, the learned Sessions Judge has clearly recorded in paragraphs No.3, 39 and 68 that offence under Section 201 was made out against accused No.3. Thus, he argued that, there has been no ambiguity with regard to the offence charged against accused No.3 at any point of time. Accused No.3 had sufficient knowledge that he was charged under Sections 201 and 120B of IPC. Hence, there is no error in the impugned order. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and perused the records.
8. By his order dated 10.09.2014, learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 420, 114, 201, 417 r/w 415, 506(1) and 120B of IPC. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.957/2011 which was heard and disposed of by a common order dated 16.07.2014, along with Crl.P.No.234/2011 and other cases. It is recorded by this Court in paragraph No.3 of the said order that cognizance was taken for offences punishable under Sections 201 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the said order before the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.5844/2014 and connected cases. In paragraph No.20 of the order passed by the Apex Court reported in (2015)2 SCC 90, it is recorded that charge was framed under Section 201 against the petitioner.
9. Further, it is relevant to note that, learned Sessions Judge rejected the application seeking discharge on 19.02.2018. This Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petitions (Crl.R.P No.211/2018 & connected cases) by common order dated 16.05.2018. Accused No.4 (petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.224/2018) challenged the order passed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No.4774/2018 which has been dismissed on 01.06.2018. Thus, the impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court on 28.05.2018 prior to dismissal of SLP.
10. Section 215 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
“Effect of errors.- No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.”
11. In the light of above facts and language employed in Section 215, typographic error cannot be considered as ‘material’ because, it does not mislead the accused in any manner.
12. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the learned Session Judge allowing the application.
13. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.