IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1254/2019 BETWEEN:
T.R.CHIKKEGOWDA S/O.LATE ANNEGOWDA @ T.S.RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT BETTADATUNGA MEGALAKOPPALU VILLAGE BETTADATUNGA HOBALI PERIYAPATNA TALUK- 571 107 MYSURU DISTRICT (BY SRI.PARASHURAM R.HATTARAKIHAL, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BETTADAPURA P.S., REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001 2. SIDDARAMA S/O.LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT BETTADAKAVAL VILLAGE BETTADATUNGA HOBALI & POST MYSURU DISTRICT … PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 23.10.2018 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.115/2017 BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT HUNASURU BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED: 27.02.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA IN CR.NO.74/2013 IN PCR.NO.248/2013 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Respondent – complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Jurisdictional Magistrate registered complaint in PCR No.248/2013 and referred that complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to police for investigation and for submission of report. With reference to referred complaint, jurisdictional police station registered case in Crime No.74/2013 of Bettadapura Police Station. In this backdrop, investigation officer conducted investigation and file ‘B’ final report. Complainant filed objections to ‘B’ final report. Thereafter, Magistrate proceeded to pass orders on 31.12.2013 observing that complainant can approach the Sessions Court to question the validity of ‘B’ final report. Complainant filed a Crl.Revision Petition No.69/2014 before the Sessions Court, Mysuru. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru remanded the matter to jurisdictional Magistrate to decide afresh in accordance with law after following the provisions of Sections 190, 200 and 203 Cr.P.C. Thus, Magistrate recorded sworn statement of complainant and witnesses and after hearing arguments, proceeded to pass the order of dismissal of complaint which was the subject matter in Crl.R.P.No.115/2017 before the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru sitting at Hunsur.
2. A Perusal of para.9 of the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.115/2017, it is clear that complainant has made out a case. On the other hand, petitioner cannot apprise this Court as to whether what is the error committed in the order dated 23.10.2018 in Crl.R.P.No.115/2017 except stating that there are no sufficient material. Having regard to the offence under Section 302 IPC, which is an heinous one and even assuming that petitioner’s plea of false implication and in the absence of material information, it is to be noted that complainant’s version, documents read with witnesses is suffice for trial. The question of falsely implicating the petitioner is a factual aspect, it is required to be decided in the trial by adducing necessary evidence. In this regard, Supreme Court in the case of CHILAKAMARTHI VENKATESWARLU & ANOTHER vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 948 held that disputed issues are triable offences. Thus, petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the order dated 23.10.2018 passed in Crl.R.P.No.115/2017. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE BS