IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8375 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka By the Public Prosecutor, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore-560098 … Petitioner (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage , Additional Public Prosecutor) AND:
1. Sri Babu, L Kundar, @ B L. Kundar Aged 71 years, R/o Shobhalaya, Opposite Kulala Bhavana, Mangaladevi Road, Mangaluru.
2. Smt. Shobhamani, Aged about 69 years, W/o Babu L Kundar, R/o Shobhalaya, Opposite Kulala Bhavana, Mangaladevi Road, Mangaluru. … Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to setting aside the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in Crl.RP.No.117/2017 dated 06.07.2018 and the order passed by the learned II-JMFC., Mangalore in C.C.No.4043/2017 dated 05.07.2017.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
In this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code” for short), the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Mangaluru, in C.C.No.4043/2017 by which application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code has been rejected. The petitioner has also assailed the validity of order dated 06.07.2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No.117/2017 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, upholding the order in revision preferred by the petitioner.
2. The Magistrate while passing the impugned order has held as follows:
“8. There appears long standing dispute between the accused persons and P.W-1 in relation to the stoppage of electricity and water supply to the rented house of P.W-1 let out by the accused persons. The so called “Fact finding report” said to have submitted by C.W-2 may not help the prosecution to prove the charges. Therefore, the production of “fact finding report” is not necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial in this case.
9. The application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is limited to the extent of recalling P.W-1 for marking the “fact finding report”. In view of the observation made hereinabove, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. does not survive for consideration”
3. The aforesaid order has been upheld by the revisional court.
4. From the relevant extracts of the order produced above, it is evident that, in fact the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code, does not survive for consideration, as the witness in respect of which an application under Section 311 of the Code, filed was declared as hostile. The order passed by the Magistrate as well as by the Revisional Court neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
5. In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition, same fails and hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg*