IN"UH3HHH€COURT{H7KARNATAKA(HRCUTTBENCH
ATDHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 08"' DAY OF FEBRUARY...24f0:1tG«',"are. V,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
CRL.R.P. Noe;k2r9,,41/2o,1ko
CRL.R.P__.. NO.VA2.25'6/20,09
IN CRL.R.P. NO. 2041/2o%:0,,%%, 'V
BETWEEN:
M.A.Ganishab€ ' » g
S/0.M.A.V2.--h--id_s'a.b_3' =:_;;,, 'V 'V ._
Age: 43 years, _BVusine"s~«s_,_ _
R/0. Tavargeré, Tq_:V'K,"u.sh»t,ag_i,,"
Dist: K0ppa1}._ ' . ' "
(By SriJ5},D;Gufide'A,..V_}§Ldvecate.)
Me]lafjfia»-Sr§5;'Malakajeppa Balutagi
Age: years, Occ: Agriculture,
. ,gMgane1p.§'a S/0. Ramappa Maddin
39 years, Occ: Agriculture,
Shararzappa S/0.G0s0mappa Aryar
" "Age: 38 years, Occ: Agricuiture,
w4"w"
...Petiti0ner.
l\)
Veerbhadrappa S/o.Andaneppa Dandin
Age: 41 years, Occ: Agriculture,
Ningappa S/o.h/Ialakajeppa Pundagoudar
Age: 41 years, Occ: Agriculture,
Sidappa S/o. Karadeppa Dandingp
Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture,
Respondents 1 to 6 are _ V
R/o. Tavargera, Tq: Kushtag-i,,
Dist: Koppal.
State of Karnataka v _
by Tavargera Police,” ‘ ‘-
represented by _ 2
State PublicF£’ovs_ec1;ltor, ” .4
High Court
Dharwadrz:-‘ ll. ” ”
…Respondent.
This cpimmaislghgzistaisiriggciseaaon is filed U/s/397 r/w.
l§o’ppal, thereby allowing the
theease to the Sessions Judge, Koppal.
g..,_.t£””~”‘”””-‘
401 Cr.P._C. .aVC!_Vo-oblate’ for the petitioner praying that
vthis Court””m_a__y.»be pleased to set aside the order
.date’d:V4.,/lb:’2S?()’lQ9,pa.s_sed in Crl.R.P.No.l 1/2009
by the learned
revision filed
the 1’»’,’,Sp_’C)’f1{lVSié~l1A’i[ Nos} to 6 against the order of committal
5/3i’.’Z,V(S)’1{)9 passed by the learned JMFC
, Kushtagi, in
_V K and consequently allow the application
_fil5ed”,byl the petitioner U/Sec.323 Cr.P.C. for committing
IN CRL.R.P. NO. 2256/2009
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka,
Represented by Tawaragera
Police Station, Tawearagera.
(By Sri.P.H.G0tkhindi, HCGP.)
AND:
1 .
Mailappa S/o.Ma1a1<ajappa A _
Age: 37 years, Occ: B.1,:sin.e3sis," 3:';
R/o.Tawaragera, Tq:"*K{us,h-tag.i,:, " A
Dist: Koppal. _ :
Manappa S/0.4 afipai =
Age: 38 ye’afs_, :”A_g_fi’e_u1-tu’i*,e,
R/o.Tawai1’gg*e,r;ag, Tq’: 4K’t.:i_sht’a’gi,
Dist:
Sharana1i5p_,ai S/e”.(iie.soriie}3ipa Areara
Age: yeiar.sA,’0’ee:*Agricu1ture,
R/_u’~i.,Ta_waragef’a,..T.q.: Kushtagi,
Dist:
I S/o.Andaneppa Dandin
Age: 39_.ye_aa”s, Oce: Agriculture,
R/6-.Ta..war’é:gera, Tq: Kushtagi,
Dist:”K(‘:ppal.
. Niiiigappa S/0.Malakajap_pa Pundagoudar
Age: 37 years, Oee: Business,
“F7;/o.Tawaragera, Tq: Kushtagi,
W’Dist: Koppal.
W
6. Siddappa S/o. Karadeppa Dandin
Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/ofllawaragera, Tq: Kushtagi,
Dist: Koppal.
. . . Res _
This Criminal Revision Petitio_yn….ips filedll’U;l’S.397’_’er/w.”.
401 Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the petit’ion«er’i’p–r.ayiun,g”that
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased-to?__set aiS’id”e..pthe”_i(3£T_.Ci’e1′.
passed by the learned Sessions ‘._Ju’dge,,7l{oppal:];
Crl.R.P.No.l1/2009 dated 4/6/2.Ql’;~.9 and.__restto’:fe7,th’e” order”
passed by the learned JMFC, Kush-saga? in c.sc.No.342/2007
dated 5/3/2009. –
These petitions eorningj” hearing on
interlocutory applie-aVtion,”t’l1is”ptlie.V_”Court made the
following: h’ *’ i
_ C” ORDER
(3ls~1~.l§.Pvv.lN–o:.”2s2So:’f”§i9itis filed by the complainant
yyyy “the file of the learned JMFC,
K’u_sht;a7gi,p e_haa1:lelrig_ing the legality” and correctness of the
ii”e»..p___ivmpugn_ie’dl aaaeeaeaaaa 4/6/2009 passed in Crl.R.P.1 1/2009
.:ipipi’_:«:byl’t_he learrie:d Sessions Judge, Koppal. Crl.R.P.No.2041/l0
the PW.l complainant i.n the said Criminal Case
l’a.lic’halpleahging the correctness of the very same impugned
f
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in
Crl.R.P.No.l1/2009. Therefore, both these reyision
petitions are disposed of by this common order. 4′
2) The facts leading to the
petitions are as under:
a) Crime No.43fl)_V”f’~….V
P.S., ifaluka Kushtagi, was:fe.gis,tered’
accused Nos. 1 to
U/Secs.l43, 147, 447,30_7,’,’3i:;3,,.,,32′;;éi;md 504
r/W.Sec.l49:.. IPEC. of
inves’tiigat~i.o}v1′ in:f:’§t’he:li’sa’id the accusation
against the ,f0t::it’h_ie.offence U/Sec.307
of IPC d.r:(7’piped and charge sheet
came” to ib’eA.._i_Viisubn1itted against all these
forppall thewsaid other offences.
H A (ihiarges were framed by the Trial
_ Clo4urt,.__”aga”inst all the accused Nos.l to 6
VA Aptlgiereivnffor the offences U/Secs.143, 147, 447,
324 and 504 r/w.Sec.149 of IPC. While
rec-ording of evidence of PW.l, before his
4 if”examination–in-chief could be completed, the
r**–(“\’W\”‘/W
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP)
made a request to the Trial Court that he was
desirous of filing an application U/Sec.323
Cr.P.C. seeking an order committing the_.”‘s;aid:”*.if-it A
case to the Sessions Court andmtherefore—ithell *
examination in chief be deferred…rlgiclcsefitliiig~..v,,.W
the said request, the Trial Coulrit defe-§*rle’dl’
exarnination-in-chief of PWT”‘1:iV:..l”.
c) Then :”vv=.f.iled his
application U/Sec.323 by
the affidavtvitljof order
committing Sessions
Courts””ons:l”j;the’7§:.; that”: the material
collected ‘by «this»_i11.vlesitiga’ting officer was not
correctlandi the c”o:rnp.’l’a.inant did not give his
furtiherli. staterne’nt lé-efore the 1.0. based on
wii..ileh1,”athe ..offenclellllJ/Sec.307 of IPC came to
_ 1.2- “dro*p_ped ”
learned JMFC, by his order
dated.V:_S1~/3/2009 allowed the said application
A and~«_.comrnitted the said case to the Sessions
Aggrieved by the said order, the
“”accused therein filed Crl.R.P.No.l’l/2009
before the learned Session Judge, Koppal. By
»w
his order dated 4/6/2009, the learned Sessions
Judge, allowed the said Revision Petition and
set aside the order of the Trial
committing the said case to the
Court and remanded the 4′
Court. Correctness of this order
in these revisions.
3) There has caused
in filing the the cause
shown in the thereof,
Misc.Crl. No. condonation of
delay is he’r_eb._y- allowejdandi”tvhe– said delay is condoned.
4) Ha”V.i_’ng_ nature of the order passed
U./.Svec.3»2i3i:o”fxCriP’;-Ci. …. ..b’.>’ the Trial Court and the order
pa’sse.d’*iIi_’vrenfisiion by the learned Sessions Judge, this
1iiexwmatterthis _tal{V_eri for final disposal by consent of
..i.3}-S.ri;-N.D.G’unéle, the learned counsel for the revision
petityiom in Crl.R.P.No.2041/2010 and Sri.P.H.Gotkhindi,
.tjiie…l.earned High Court Government Pleader, representing
revision petitioner State in Crl.R.P.No.2256/2009
x
before issuing notice to the respondents therein (accused
before Trial Court). Perused the order of Triai Cour:t”‘»and
aiso the impugned order of the learned Sessions
5) Sec.323 of Cr.P.C. prO§*’iidV€S4ihi_hlt,_”iilf._ tin-i.i’at?iy 2
inquiry into an offence or a trial biefoire a M’_–agfstra;te’,–~,pit~.VV
appears to him at any stage iof:’z”he pr’o_¢ee;;;’ng¢; “before
signing judgment that the_””casei i,9iVi’o::»;eiVC’14?hich ought to be
tried by the Courtptof Sesstofz-,t i_sh’a!li”ejorhmit it to that
Court under ihetfeirtibiefi’)7*e contained and
thereupon 0″f,C-hapt’er’XVI’1I shall apply to the
commitmentso«.miade”;’:’e<.V"C'V.
6) iVst..c1e’ari”‘f;rorn the provisions of Sec.323
t–.h=at”i..t is oinilyhafter commencement of the inquiry
into o;1*.tt’riai, if it appears to the Magistrate that
the ease— is.–__”one’ which ought to be tried by the Court of
_i”Eiest,sio:1,4 heihas to commit the case to the Court of Session.
instant case examination of PW.1 was commenced
exan1ination»i.n-chief itseif was deferred at the
r»..J”‘”””*”‘
request of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Thus it
is clear that PW.1 was not subjected to cross examinaitigon.
At that stage the learned JMFC entertained _
filed U/Sec.323 of Cr.P.C. and accepptingp.”t’i1’ei:’_aiiieirrnAe12.stis”=
made by the injured complainant ai9rIid;;vit
sworn to in support of the staid’-v.._appl’iQa’t~ion~,_tii.e””ii1.earned’iii
JMFC by his order, aV1iowed&..i-‘t’ii.e_:’-said app}-ichaiion and
committed the case to the Court~’o’f The learned
Sessions Judge h§as”«r_ightiiy impugned order
passed in revisionifthat’t»h4e”ii:if}’.r.ial..i’Court committed error in
ailowing the ‘eiren before PW.1 could be
fully ex.amineid«,_Vii V
ii5§.Vj§’}.g_.hasstated in his affidavit sworn to in
suppor*ti___of’i€i:,e application that he did not give any
ifurtheri”stat.emciit before the 1.0. and therefore dropping of
accusation against accused therein for the offence
of _IPC was not justified and hence the accused
to be tried for the said offence also. This was accepted
€~
10
by the Trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly
observed in his impugned order in revision that the coinitents
of the said affidavit to that effect ought notyhattea heeh«_
accepted by the iearned Magistrate before =
examined as to recording of furitherf”s’tate.rnen’tio’f..gfh_e
complainant.
8) I do not findvanxy reasons ito_inter’fere”iwith the
impugned order passed by Judge in the
Said Cr1.R.P.N0;.”1ii?t'{g2’009i=t_ these revisions
deserve tofbe”da.ig:simiss?e’d iaspi”bein”g”‘devoid of merits. Hence
the fo11owiiri–g:ii «. V V v
it”Crl.,.R.-P.No.2256/2009 filed by the
cio’rn_p1airitaiit4State’ and Cr1.R.P.No.2041/2010 filed by PW.i
the__satidv_i.Ci§ijti:No.342/2007 On the rite of the learned
Klishitagi, are hereby dismissed as being devoid of
jiiihe impugned order dated 4/6/2009 passed in
¢-~–t«=.$””””‘”””‘°”‘~”*-“””‘
11
Crl.R.P. No.11/2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Koppal,
is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.
§u@§%eTp*e7
Vmb/Mrk.