Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 23282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6309 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. RAVINDRA REDDY, S/O. GURVAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.142, 3RD CROSS, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, BANASAVADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.
2. SARASWATHI REDDY, S/O. SIDDHARTH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 31, 6TH CROSS, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, BABUSAPALYA, Digitally signed by V KALAYAN NAGAR, KRISHNA BANGALORE - 560 043.
Location: High Court of Karnataka 3. LAKSHMI REDDY, W/O. RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 59/3, MAHALAKSHMI FARM AND NURSERY, KETOHALLI VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKOPPE POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
4. SIDDHARTH REDDY, S/O. NARAYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.31, DAIVAKRUPA, 6TH CROSS, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, BANASAVADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.
5. BHASKAR REDDY, GURAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.142, 3RD CROSS, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, BANASAVADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DESHPANDE AMIT ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. S. SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. SIDDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 281, REDDY FARM, BEML LAYOUT, 3RD STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO (a)
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.32695/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.143, 144, 147, 149, 323, 341, 427, 447, 504, 506, 307 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE 3rd ACMM, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, for quashing the Committal Order passed by the III A.C.M.M. Bangalore, in CC.No.32695/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 149, 323, 341, 427, 447, 504, 506 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the 1st respondent/State.
3. The case of the petitioners is that a FIR was registered against the petitioners initially for the offence of 307 of IPC in Crime No.249/2017 before the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bangalore. Subsequently, while filing the charge sheet, the Police dropped 307 of IPC and filed charge sheet only for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 323, 341, 427, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and the learned Magistrate is said to have taken cognizance for the above said offences and not for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate suo moto committed the case under Section 209 r/w 323 of Cr.P.C. on 30.11.2021 thinking that the offence is under
307 of IPC, which is under challenge.
4. After hearing the argument and on perusal of the record it is an admitted fact that in the FIR an offence under 307 of IPC was registered by the Police against these petitioners. Subsequently charge sheet against these petitioners for the offence 307 has been dropped.
The cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate only for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 323, 341, 427, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and not taken any cognizance for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions by invoking the provisions of 209 r/w 323 of Cr.P.C. by mentioning at 1st para of the impugned order that Section 307 is charge-sheeted by the Police. But in fact the Police have not charge-sheeted for
307 of IPC.
5. It is well settled principle of law, that if the Police have left out any provisions of law, the learned Magistrate after verifying the records can take cognizance for the offences based upon the material in the charge-sheet. But no cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC in order to commit a case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C to the Court of Session or else after framing of charge, when the witness was put into witness box, the evidence of witnesses revealed that offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is made out by the Sessions Judge, then the Magistrate will get power under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. and he should commit the matter at the time of partial trial conducted by him. Here in this case, no such cognizance was taken by the Magistrate under Section 307 of IPC, in order to commit a case to the Court of Session under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. or no evidence was led by the prosecution in order to show that there was an offence committed by the accused, which is triable by the Sessions Judge in order to commit a case to the Court of Sessions Judge under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. Such being the case, the question of suo moto committing the case to the Court of Session by invoking the provisions of Section 209 or 323 of Cr.P.C. does not arise.
6. However, learned HCGP submits that there are cases and counter cases registered against both the parties and both the cases shall be tried by the same judge.
7. The arguments of the learned HCGP is correct. However, there is no reference made by the Sessions Judge for summoning this case to the Court of Session in order to try both the cases together along with the counter case. Such being the case, the question of committing the case by the Magistrate and taking suo moto without taking cognizance for 307 of IPC is erroneous and against law. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. The Sessions Judge without going through the charge sheet, has also proceeded with the trial, which is also not correct. Therefore, the proceedi
