Karnataka High Court
Kallappayya S/O Basayya @ Banappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2021
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRL.RP.No.200078/2021
BETWEEN:
KALLAPPAYYA S/O BASAYYA
@ BANAPPA DIGAMBARMATH
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORK
DIGAMBAR SANSTHANMATH
R/O KOLHAR, TQ. B. BAGEWADI
DIST. VIJAYAPURA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK B. MULAGE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KOLHAR P.S.,
TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA
THROUGH ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY IV-ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIJAYAPUR IN SESSIONS CASE NO.82/2019, DATED 13.08.2021
2
ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 319 OF
CR.P.C., AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SECTION 319 CR.P.C., BY THE PROSECUTION BEFORE THE
TRIAL COURT FOR IMPLEADING AND SUMMONING REVISION
PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 397 r/w
Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order
dated 13.08.2021 passed by IV-Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, in Sessions Case No.82/2019
allowing the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.,
and dismiss the application filed under Section 319 of
Cr.P.C., by the prosecution before the trial Court for
impleading and summoning the revision petitioner.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the
complainant filed complaint on 22.12.2018 making
allegation against three persons in connection with
transaction of property and also alleged that the accused
caused threat to the son of the complainant and due to
which, her son committed suicide. Based on the complaint,
the police have registered the case for the offences
punishable under Sections 321, 341, 306, 504, 506 r/w
Section 34 of IPC. The police have investigated the matter
and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 306, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. While
filing charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has dropped
Kallappayya who was arrayed as accused No.2 in the FIR.
Thereafter, charges were framed against accused Nos.1
and 2 in the chargesheet.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the case
examined the complainant/CW.1 as PW.1 and examined
one witness as PW.2. The prosecution filed an application
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., to bring Kallappayya S/o
Basayya @ Banappa Digambarmath on record as accused.
The trial Court, considering the contents of the complaint
and also evidence of the witnesses, vide order dated
13.08.2021 referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab
reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, comes to the conclusion
that Kallappayya has to be arrayed as accused and issued
process. Hence, the present petition is filed before this
Court.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner is that the trial Court failed to
consider the very scope and ambit of Section 319 of
Cr.P.C. When the Investigating Officer investigated the
matter and not found any material against the petitioner,
he was dropped while filing the chargesheet. The trial
Court considering the stray statement of PW.1 arraigned
this petitioner as accused and no material is placed on
record against the petitioner and innocent person is
brought on record. The learned counsel also submits that
the petitioner is working as Peethadipati and with political
animosity, in order to remove him from the said post of
Peethadipati, he has been falsely implicated. The trial
Court failed to apply his judicious mind while arraying him
as accused.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit
that in the complaint particularly, at paragraph-3, the
complainant has stated the role of this petitioner and
causing threat to the son of the complainant. On account
of the threat given by the petitioner along with other
accused, son of the complainant took extreme step of
committing suicide. He has brought to the notice of this
Court the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 wherein PW.1
reiterated the averments of the complaint in her evidence
and PW.2 has spoken about witnessing the deceased-
Basavaraj in hanging position. He also brought to the
notice of this Court the application filed before the trial
Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., wherein several
averments are made in the said application. He submits
that the trial Court considering both oral and documentary
evidence and contents of the application filed by the
prosecution, discussed in detail in paragraph-11 of the
impugned order and applying the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Hardeep Singh's case has rightly passed
the order invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the
impugned order does not require interference of this Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and perused
the material on record. A perusal of statement of
complainant discloses that, the allegations made in the
complaint are not only against accused Nos.1 and 2, but
also against the petitioner. It is also stated in the
complaint that earlier they had approached the petitioner
and made it clear that they have already made payment of
Rs.28,00,000/- for purchase of property and requested the
petitioner either to get the said amount paid which they
have advanced or to help them. The specific allegation is
made in paragraph-4 of the complaint that the petitioner
threatened the son of the complainant stating that he
would take away his life. The son of the complainant was
upset as they lost money as well as the property and being
upset, he went inside the house and committed suicide.
Apart from the complaint averments, in the evidence of
PW.1, she has reiterated the very contents of the
complaint and specific allegation is made that the
petitioner along with accused No.2 threatened her son and
due to which, he committed suicide. The prosecution also
urged the very same grounds in paragraph-3 of the
application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. I have perused
the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The trial
Court while allowing the application has discussed the
scope of Section 319 of Cr.P.C., and has taken note of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh's
case. The trial Court in paragraphs-9 to 11 of the
impugned order has discussed in detail particularly, at
paragraph-11 considered Ex.P1-complaint and evidence of
PW.1 and comes to the conclusion that both in the
complaint and in the evidence of PW.1, the complainant
has reiterated the same and allowed the application.
8. Having taken note of the contents of the
complaint, evidence of PW.1 and also contents of the
application, specific allegations are made against the
petitioner also. But, it is unfortunate that the Investigating
Officer while filing charge sheet dropped the petitioner for
the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer. When
the complaint prima facie discloses the specific allegations
against the petitioner which has been reiterated in the
evidence of PW.1 and in the grounds urged in the
application filed by the prosecution, the trial Court having
considered the material in toto has rightly come to the
conclusion that it is a fit case to exercise power under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any merit in
the petition to set aside the impugned order passed by the
trial Court.
9. In view of the observations made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the main matter,
I.A.No.1/2021 for stay does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
