SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Shri Ranganath @ Ranga, S/o. Late Venkatesh – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Through Hennur Police Station, Represented By State Public Prosecutor and Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.9165 Of 2022
Decided On : 17-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, A/W Sri Gaurav N.
For the Respondent: Smt. K.P. Yashodha, HCGP.

The trial judge is expected to exercise judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out, and the duty of the trial court to apply its mind at the time of framing charges and not act as a mere post office.

Headnote:

CrPC - Discharge Application - Section 227 - IPC, Arms Act, SC/ST Act - [DISCHARGE APPLICATION] - [CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER] - [IPC Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 109, 302, 120B, 201 r/w 149, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989] - The court discussed the application under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking discharge from the array of accused. The court emphasized the legal provisions and principles laid down by the Apex Court in various cases, stating that the trial judge is expected to exercise judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out. The court also highlighted the duty of the trial court to apply its mind at the time of framing charges and not act as a mere post office. The court found that the allegations against the petitioner of funding the commission of murder of the deceased by hatching a conspiracy along with other accused were serious and grave, and therefore, rejected the discharge application.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, accused No.3, filed an application under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking his discharge from the array of accused in a case involving criminal conspiracy to commit murder. The Special Court rejected the application, leading to the petitioner's challenge of the order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations against the petitioner of funding the commission of murder of the deceased by hatching a conspiracy along with other accused were serious and grave, and therefore, rejected the discharge application.

Issues: The main issue was the veracity of the order passed by the Special Court rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal provisions and principles laid down by the Apex Court in various cases, stating that the trial judge is expected to exercise judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out. The court also highlighted the duty of the trial court to apply its mind at the time of framing charges and not act as a mere post office.

Final Decision: The Criminal Petition lacking in merit was dismissed, and consequently, I.A.No.2/2022 also stands dismissed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 20-07-2022 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore in Special Case No.217 of 2021 on an application filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking his discharge from the array of accused.

2. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts succinctly stated are as follows:

The petitioner is accused No.3 in Special Case No.217 of 2021. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. On 13-11-2021 one Sreedhar leaves his house to meet a friend in Hebbal. On the way back the said Sreedhar stops his car near Shanthi Sagar Hotel at Kammanahalli Main Road to go for shopping and later proceeded towards Nagawara. His car was stopped at Hennur service road to answer a nature call. The accused spots the said Sreedhar on the service road when he returned to his car and started driving. The accused are alleged to have blocked the car by their two wheelers and when Sreedhar got down from the car and started running to escape from assailants, 5 to 6 unknown persons chased and assaulted Sreedhar with dagger and machhu which has resulted in the death of Sreedhar. Based upon the said incident a complaint comes to be registered by the wife of the deceased against 5 to 6 unknown persons which becomes a crime in Crime No.217 of 2021 for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 109, 302, 120B, 201 r/w 149 of the IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner is arrested on 7-12-2021 and was remanded to judicial custody and later enlarged on bail on 28-12-2021. On 7-01-2022 the Police claiming to have completed investigation, filed a charge sheet before the Special Court wherein the petitioner continues to be arrayed as accused No.3 for the aforesaid offences.

4. The issue in the case at hand is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The petitioner files an application under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking his discharge from the array of accused. The application comes to be rejected on 20-07-2022. It is the said order that is called in question in the subject petition. All other contentions that are raised in the petition are given up by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and would restrict his submissions only to the veracity of the order denying discharge of the petitioner passed by the Special Court.

5. The learned senior counsel would emphasise on the fact that the Special Court records a finding that the Investigating Officer had not completed the investigation and further report was yet to be filed and, therefore, it was an incomplete charge sheet. Notwithstanding incomplete charge sheet, the Special Court declines to discharge the petitioner from the array of accused as he was charged on incomplete investigation.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that further report of investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC was awaited at the hands of the concerned Court. In the meantime since charge sheet was substantially ready, it was filed. It is always open to the Court to direct further investigation and filing of additional charge sheet. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner to contend that the order on that ground becomes erroneous.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

8. Since the only issue is with regard to the veracity of the order passed by the Special Court rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner, the consideration in the case at hand is also restricted to examine the order passed by the learned Special Judge on 20-07-2022.

9. Before embarking upon consider

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top