IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

CRL.P. NO.102352 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

SHRI TAVANAPPA S/O KALLAPPA RAVAL

AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,

R/O BANAHATTI, TQ:BANAHATTI,

DIST:BAGALKOT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,

THROUGH CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

BANAHATTI, TQ:JAMKHANDI,

DIST:BAGALKOT.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.

PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.9.2017

PASSED BY THE JMFC, BANAHATTI IN CC NO.230/2011 SO FAR AS

THE ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 216 OF CR.P.C. IS

CONCERNED AND TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY ALLOWING

THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

On the report of one Shri. Ravinarayan, Dy.S.P. of

Jamakhandi, a case came to be registered in Crime

No.56/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 292,

497 and 420 of IPC against the present petitioner.

2.

The allegation in the report of Dy.S.P. is that

the accused-petitioner was in the habit of having illicit

physical relationship with women and he was clandestinely

filming

such

acts

and

thereafter,

circulating

such

obnoxious films to his friends and thereby he was deriving

perverse pleasure. It is further stated in the report that

CW6

was

also

used

by

the

petitioner

for

physical

relationship and he had filmed the same in some hotel and

he had disseminated its contents on the internet. After

investigation, charge sheet has been filed for offences

punishable under Sections 292, 497 and 420 of IPC. At an

earlier stage of the proceedings, the petitioner had

challenged

the

charge

sheet

before

this

Court

in

Crl.P.No.11290/2011 and by order dated 13.3.2012, this

3

Court had quashed the charge sheet insofar as offence

punishable

under

Section

497

of

IPC

is

concerned.

Thereafter, the learned APP filed an application under

Section 216 of Cr.P.C for incorporating the offences under

Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act,

2000 and Amendment Act, 2008.

3.

The only contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner before me while impugning the order of the

learned JMFC, dated 27.9.2017 allowing the application

filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., is that already the

charges have been framed, once charge under Section 497

of IPC was quashed by this Court referred to above, there

was no occasion or need for the learned JMFC to allow the

application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for incorporating

the

offences

under

Sections

66E

and

67A

of

the

Information Technology Act, 2000 and Amendment Act,

2008. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order is

liable to be set-aside.

4

4.

Learned HCGP, per contra, submits that trial is

yet to take place and further allegation making out the

ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 66E and

67A

of

the

Information

Technology

Act,

2000

and

Amendment

Act,

2008

is

already

available

in

the

complaint as well as in the charge sheet filed and the

application

filed

under

Section

216

of

Cr.P.C.

to

incorporate the said offences is only in the nature of

clarification and it does not cause any prejudice to the

petitioner inasmuch as no new allegations are brought on

record apart from what is already available in the charge

sheet papers.

5.

I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by learned counsel on either side and

perused the charge sheet papers.

6.

The case came to be registered based on the

report of Sub-divisional Police Officer, Jamakhandi, who

upon receiving credible information had giv