1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.247/2019

BETWEEN

1 . SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA

W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

2 . NAGEGOWDA

S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/O SURAPURA VILLAGE,

KOLLEGALA TALUK

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571440

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI D S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY KOLLEGALA RURAL POLICE STATION

KOLLEGALA

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571440

REP BY :SPP

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU-560001

2

2 . RAMESH

S/O MARIGOWDA

AGED MAJOR

3 . SMT CHANDRAMMA

W/O MARIGOWDA

AGED MAJOR

4 . RAJEGOWDA

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS

AGED MAJOR

5 . NAGESH

S/O RAJEGOWDA

AGED MAJOR

6 . SUBBEGOWDA

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS

AGED MAJOR

7 . SHANTHARAJU

S/O DEVEGOWDA

AGED MAJOR

ALL ARE R/O SURAPURA VILLAGE,

KOLLEGALA TALUK

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT -571 440

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI B.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7;

R2, R3, R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE

ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT

AND

SESSIONS

JUDGE,

KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGAR DATED 11.01.2019 ON

I.A FILED U/S 319 OF CRPC IN S.C.NO.5001/2016.

3

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON

FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Heard Sri D.S.Hosmath, learned Counsel for the de-

facto complainant who has filed this Revision Petition

challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions

Judge in SC No.5001/2016, on the application filed under

Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the prosecution, whereby the

application

came

to

be

rejected

by

order

dated

11.01.2019.

2.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

Respondents namely respondent Nos.2 to 7 are

accused in S.C.No.5001/2016, who stood for trial for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354(B), 506

and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Prosecution has

already commenced the trial. On behalf of the prosecution,

three witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 to 3. In all

there are about eight witnesses. As could be seen from the

4

order sheet, an application filed under Section 319 of

Cr.P.C. came to be filed on 20.12.2018 by the prosecution.

3.

The proper course for the learned Trial Judge

was to apply the principles of the law enunciated in the

case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

reported in 2014(3) SCC 92 and issued notices to the

proposed accused persons and then call for necessary

objections from the proposed accused and proceed with

the case. Such a course is not adopted by the learned Trial

Judge.

4.

Per contra, objections filed by the already

arraigned accused have been treated as objections to the

application and dismissed the application by order dated

11.01.2019.

5.

At this stage, Sri B.Keshava Murthy, learned

counsel for the proposed accused Nos.5 to 7 submits that

he would personally appear before the Sessions Court and

proceed with the case in accordance with law as per the

5

principles of law enunciated in Hardeep's case supra. His

submission is placed on record.

6.

The said procedure adopted by the learned

Sessions Judge is incorrect in view of the principles of the

law enunciated in the case of Hardeep supra. Accordingly,

a case is made out for reconsideration of the matter in

accordance with law. Hence, pass the following:

ORDER

1. The Revision Petition is allowed.

2. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the

matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh

consideration of the said application by setting

aside the order dated 11.01.2019.

3. On the next date of hearing, the Trial Judge shall

issue Show Cause Notice to the proposed accused.

6

4. The Revision Petitioners shall appea