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.5818/2016 BETWEEN:
1. T B RAJANNA, AGE 49 YEARS, S/O BABURAYYA POLICE INSPECTOR, SESCAN JAGRATHA DALA, MANDYA-571 425.
2. DUGGAPPA, AGE 46 YEARS, S/O LATE MADAPPAGOWDA, PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, PUTTUR TALUK, DK-574 201.
3. SHARATH KUMAR, AGE 36 YEARS, S/O. DESAPPASHETTY, HEAD CONSTABLE 2134, FINGER PRINT UNIT, MANGALORE CITY, MANGALORE, D.K-575 001.
4. RUKKMAYA, AGE 43 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA MUGERA, HEAD CONSTABLE 2000, MANGALORE POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, D.K-575 001.
5. SATISH, AGE 39 YEARS, S/O RAGHUNATHA, POLICE CONSTABLE 2179, ULLAL POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, D.K-575 001.
6. JAGADEESH, AGE 43 YEARS, S/O BABU POOJARY, POLICE CONSTABLE 2215, SURATHKAL POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, D.K.-575 001. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri.AJAY PRABHU.M, ADV., FOR Sri.SACHIN.B.S, ADV.,) AND:
1. SIDDAPPA GOWDA, S/O.BELLIYAPPA GOWDA, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT MASTHIKALLU, MAJALU HOUSE, KOFFADA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY, D K DISTRICT-574 214.
2. THE STATE, REP BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, D.K, MANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.HALEEMA AMEEN, ADV., FOR Sri.S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV., FOR R1; Sri.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1.7.2016 PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.241/2015 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K., MANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.7.2016 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, whereby the revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the order passed by the JMFC, Belthangady, in C.C.No.393/2007 dated 30.10.2015 discharging the petitioners herein(accused Nos.1 to 7) has been set aside.
2. The undisputed facts are that respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. The learned Magistrate at the initial stage proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant and witness without taking congnizance of the alleged offence. However, the said error was later rectified and after taking cognizance, sworn statement of the complainant and his witness were examined and considering the said material learned Magistrate by order dated 30.10.2018 discharged all the accused persons on the specious reasoning that the sworn statement recorded in the case was not evidence within the meaning of Sections 242, 245 and 246 of Cr.P.C.
3. The said order was challenged before the revisional Court and the revisional Court set aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2015 and directed the learned Magistrate to record the evidence before framing of charge.
4. The whole controversy appears to have arisen on account of the fact that the complainant moved a memo before the learned Magistrate to treat the sworn statement as the evidence before charge. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that such course is not permissible in the scheme of the Act. I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
All other legal contentions urged by the parties are left open for consideration at the appropriate stage.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.