Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.
Paramahamsa Nithyananda Swamy @ Rajashekaran – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 6920, 6927 of 2018
Decided On : 16-01-2019
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 317, 301(2) and 313 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Seeking exemption from appearance - Prayer to exempt his personal appearance - Examination of accused - Accused No. 1 filed an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. on with a prayer to exempt his personal appearance for the day inter alia on ground that, he was observing Chathurmasa, a spiritual practice to be observed he was doing on the bank of Narmada river, where he had to perform religious rituals in certain temples he had fallen ill at Varanasi and after he recovered from illness, he continued his and that he could not wind-up the Parikrama as it is against spiritual/religious tenets – Held, Learned Sessions Judge ought to have recorded cogent reasons while rejecting the application - He has merely recorded that accused was not co-operating with the Court for disposal of the matter expeditiously - Impugned order does not disclose application of mind by learned Trial Judge vis-a-vis reasons stated in the application - Ground urged seeking exemption is his wife was seriously ill and requires his assistance - While rejecting application of accused - Learned Sessions Judge has not adverted to the reasons shown in the application nor recorded cogent reasons except stating Court is not satisfied with the reasons given - Crl. Pet. No. 6920/2018 and Crl. Pet. No. 6927/2018 are allowed
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.
1. These two petitions have been presented by accused No. 1 and 3 in S.C. No. 86/2014 on the file of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, challenging order dated 06.09.2018, rejecting their applications filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and issuing Non-Bailable Warrants against them.
2. Heard Shri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate for accused No. 1, Shri Ravi B.Naik, learned Senior Advocate for accused No. 3 and Shri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, accused No. 1 filed an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. on 06.09.2018 with a prayer to exempt his personal appearance for the day inter alia on the ground that, he was observing Chathurmasa, a spiritual practice to be observed by all Sanyasis; that he was doing Chathurmasa Parikrama on the bank of Narmada river, where he had to perform religious rituals in certain temples; that he had fallen ill at Varanasi and after he recovered from illness, he continued his Parikrama and that he could not wind-up the Parikrama as it is against spiritual/religious tenets.
4. Learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application by following order:-
| "ORDERS ON APLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF A1 U/SEC. 317 OF Cr.PC | |
| There is directions from Hon'ble Supreme Court in Spl. Leave Petition No. 1176/2017 to dispose of the matter expeditiously. | |
| Accused No. 1 remained absent form 14.06.2018. | |
| On 16.08.2018, it is submitted on behalf of A1 that, accused No. 1 being pontiff is observing Chathurmasa Parikrama and he will personally present before the court in the 1st week of September. Even the counsel for the accused No. 1 has undertaken to keep A1 present before the court. However, once again today also EP is filed on behalf of A1. | |
| Since there is directions from Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is for the accused to co-operate with the court for the disposal of the matter expeditiously. The undertaking given to this court on 16.08.2018 has not been complied. | |
| On the last date of hearing Sri. ERGN for A1 has prayed time to argue on the applications filed under Sec.301(2) of Cr.PC by CW1 and CW3. On that day, as requested, time granted as a final chance keeping in mind the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Today, he sought time to argue. Thus, it is prima-facie clear that, accused No. 1 is not co-operating with the court to comply the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hence, on this score also, it is not a fit case to exempt the appearance of A1. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of A1 deserves to be rejected. | |
| Hence, the following: | |
| ORDER | |
| The application filed on behalf of A1 U/sec. 317 of Cr.PC is hereby rejected. | |
| Issue NBW to A1 and notice to his surety through SP, CID, Bengaluru. | |
|
| Sd/- |
| III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge | |
| Ramanagara." | |
5. Similarly, accused No. 3 also filed an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. seeking exemption from personal appearance on the ground that his wife (accused No. 5) was suffering from corrosive lichen planus an autoimmune disease, which effects 0.5 to 1 percent of the population and if it were not treated would lead to Cancer; that Doctors in India and United States have opined that the disease is serious in nature; accused No. 5 is not in a position to travel long distance and she required assistance of somebody, which was presently given by accused No. 3.
6. The application filed by accused No. 3 has also been rejected by following order:
"ORDERS ON APLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF A3 TO A6
Today, A3 to A6 are also absent. On their behalf, applications U/sec. 317 of Cr.PC is filed.
Perused. A4 and A6 are present on the last date of hearing. Hence, the
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
