Court affirmed the trial court's decision to limit the cognizance of offenses based on assessed evidentiary sufficiency against specific accused, ruling that adequate grounds existed for proceeding only against them.

ORDER :

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.03.2021 passed in PCR No.4 of 2020, by the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC II Court, Gadag, which is confirmed in Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2021, by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag by order dated 19.01.2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Petitioner had filed a private complaint before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate against 8 persons alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Section 465 , 466, 471, 474, 166, 166A, 167, 409, 418 r/w 149 of IPC. After recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and marking the documents which were produced in support of his case, the trial Court had heard the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter, vide impugned order dated 16.03.2021, had taken cognizance of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465 , 466, 471, 474, 167, 418 r/w 34 of IPC, only as against accused Nos.1, 4 and 5. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner had filed Criminal Revision Petition No.12 of 2021 which was rejected on 19.08.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the ground urged in the petition submits that the documents which were produced and marked before the trial Court Exs.P1 to P26 makes out a clear case as against all the accused persons named in the private complaint. However, the said documents were not appreciated by the learned trial Judge and he has erred in taking cognizance of the alleged offences only as against accused nos.1, 4 and 5. Even the Revisional Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.

5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that sworn statement of the petitioner was recorded before the trial Court on 09.12.2020 and 05.01.2021. The petitioner who was examined before the trial Court as PW1, in support of his case had got marked 26 documents as Exs.P1 to P26. The learned trial Judge having referred to the sworn statement of the petitioner and also documents marked as Exs.P1 to P26 in support of the case of the petitioner, in paragraph Nos.9 to 13 of his order, has observed as follows :

9. From a wholesome reading of the complaint averments, the sworn statement and the documents produced by the complainant it can be deduced that the complainant's case in essence is that the accused in collusion with each other with the common object of causing wrongful loss to the complainant concocted/created the resolutions at Ex.P4 and Ex.P12 through which the DOT License issued in favour of the complainant to run the power loom were cancelled / revoked and thereafter made wrongful communications on the basis of the aforementioned resolutions resulting in unlawful disruption of power supply to the business unit of the complainant and monetary, physical and emotional loss to the complainant. The complainant thus alleged that the accused have committed the offences punishable U/ss. 465, 466, 471, 474, 166, 166A, 167, 409, 418 R/w Section 149 of IPC.

10. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Ex.P8 which forms the fulcrum of the case of the complainant. According to Ex.P8 which is the endorsement dated 30.08.2016 issued by the PDO of Hatalageri Grama Panchyath to the complainant, there was no meeting of any kind on 23.04.2016. Under such circumstances, the alleged resolution dated 23.04.2016 at Ex.P4 is palpably created. In that view of the matter, the letters at Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 written by accused No.1, 4 and 5 respectively to the accused No.6 requesting disruption of power supply to the complainant on the basis of the revocation of DOT License issued in favour of the complainant vide reso