IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Sri Rajendra Sing S/o. Gokul Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Through Brahmapur Police Station, Kalaburagi & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 200339 of 2022
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 156(3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 420, 441, 442, 447, 448, 452, 34 - Wrongful restraint - Criminal trespass - Petitioners pray that Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside order in Crl.Rev passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge in interest of justice and equity – Action on part of learned District Judge in Revision Petition is opposed to principles of natural justice besides being acting as prejudicial to interest of Revision Petitioners - Para 19.
Finding of the Court: Once Criminal Revision Petition came to be filed before learned District Court, learned District Judge did not choose to issue notice to petitioners who are proposed accused before disposal of Revision Petition on merits - If revisional Court had issued notice to petitioners and heard them before revision could be decided on merits, revisional Court could have had benefit of explanation that would have been offered by petitioners in respect of revisional grounds and revisional Court could have passed a judicious order - Suffice to say, that learned District Judge in Revision Petition did not adopt procedure and thereby order passed by learned District Judge which is impugned in petition has resulted in miscarriage of justice - Therefore, Court has no hesitation whatsoever in setting aside impugned order and remit matter to learned District Judge for fresh disposal after hearing petitioners - Petitioners and defacto complainant who is second respondent, are directed to appear before Revisional Court without further notice.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with the following prayer :
“WHEREFORE, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 30.12.2021 in Crl.Rev.P.No.87/2021 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent-State and Sri Basavaraj M. Police Patil, learned counsel for second respondent and perused the records.
3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:
Second respondent herein filed a private complaint against the accused/petitioners herein in PC No.549/2019 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, seeking action against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 420, 441, 442, 447, 448, 452 read with Section 34 IPC. There is a pending civil dispute between the parties. The said private complaint was referred to police for investigation and filing of appropriate report by exercising powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., by the learned Trial Magistrate.
4. Based on the said reference, police registered a case in Crime No.10/2020 and filed ‘B’ final report.
5. The defacto complainant filed a protest petition against the ‘B’ final report. The learned Trial Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and considering the documentary evidence placed on record, was not satisfied that the proposed accused persons (petitioners herein) are to be summoned for further trial and therefore, dismissed the protest petition.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Trial Magistrate, the defacto complainant filed a Revision Petition before the District Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.87/2021. The learned District and Sessions Judge, even without issuing notice to the petitioners herein, secured the records and allowed the Revision Petition by passing following order :
“The Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioners/complainant under section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed. The order dated 16.09.2021 made in P.C.R.No.549/2019 (Crime No.10/2020) passed by the IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburgi is set aside.
Consequentially, “B” final report submitted by Investigating Officer is rejected. The trial Court shall take cognizance against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and issue process against accused persons. Complainant is directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.01.2022 without awaiting any notice from the trial Court.
Office to send trial Court records and copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith.”
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
8. Re-iterating the grounds urged in the petition Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior counsel vehemently contended that the approach of the District Court in not issuing notice to the petitioners and unilaterally deciding the Revision Petition in the absence of the petitioners resulted in miscarriage of justice, besides being flouting all settled principles of law in respect of the doctrine of principles of natural justice and sought for allowing the petition by passing an order as referred to above.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that appropriate orders are to be passed inasmuch as the police had already filed ‘B’ report.
10. Learned counsel for the second respondent Sri Basavaraj M. Police Patil, while supporting the impugned order contended that the learned District Judge has considered the sworn statement and the material documents produced before him and rightly allowed the Revision Petition and sought for dismissal of the petition.
11. In reply, Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior counsel placing reliance on th
Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs. Satish Atmaram Talekar and Others
SupremeToday
It is settled principles of law that no lis can be decided in absence of a party.
A Magistrate must provide clear reasons when disagreeing with a negative Final Report, and failing to do so renders the order unsustainable.
The accused has a right to be heard in revisional proceedings if the complaint is dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused has a right to be heard in a revision petition challenging the order of dismissal of complaint, even if no process has been issued....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.