Karnataka High Court
Allabhakshi B vs State By Harihara Rural Police ... on 10 March, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.337/2022
BETWEEN:
1. ALLABHAKSHI B,
S/O BUDEN SAB,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER,
RESIDENT OF DEVARABELAKERE (AT AND POST),
HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DIST - 577 002.
2. SABJAN B,
S/O BUDEN SAB,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
POLICE CONSTABLE,
OFFICE OF THE DGP,
INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION,
NO.60, RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
ALSO RESIDING AT DEVARABELAKERE (AT AND POST),
HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DIST - 577 002. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SATISHCHANDRA R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY HARIHARA RURAL POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. SHIVA KUMAR C.N.,
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
VETERINARY ASSISTANT,
NITTURU VILLAGE,
VETERINARY HOSPITAL,
DAVANAGERE TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 530. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 319
OF CR.P.C. DATED 04.01.2022 IN C.C.NO.256/2014 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HARIHARA
ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION
FILED UNDER SECTION 319 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.256/2014 ON
THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HARIHARA
AT ANNEXURE-F.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by
the Trial Court invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C. impleading the
proposed accused Nos.3 and 4.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners before this Court is that though FIR was registered
against the petitioners, while filing the charge-sheet, the
Investigating Officer dropped these petitioners and the charge-
sheet was filed only against accused Nos.1 and 2. The learned
counsel submits that no protest memo is filed when the charge-
sheet is filed. However, when P.W.2 came and deposed before
the Court regarding the involvement of these two petitioners, the
Trial Court committed an error in considering the evidence of
P.W.2 and invoked Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and hence it requires
interference of this Court.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State would submit that when
P.W.2 was examined before the Trial Court, he categorically
deposed that the incident was taken place at 7.30 p.m. and
P.W.2 was purchasing the seal, at that time, these two
petitioners came inside the hospital and closed the door and
thereafter assaulted him with their hands and as a result, blood
was oozing and when he screamed and came out from the said
place, Budensab and Maulasab were standing outside and all of
them again assaulted and abused in a filthy language and also
caused life threat. Hence, the prosecution has filed an
application invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court
considering the material, particularly the evidence of P.W.2,
rightly invoked the offence under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and
passed an order to implead these petitioners as accused
persons.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State and on perusal of the material on record and
also considering the evidence of P.W.2 injured, who has been
examined before the Trial Court, he has stated that the incident
was taken place at 7.30 p.m. and these petitioners assaulted
with their hands and again other accused persons also joined
along with these two petitioners and all of them have inflicted
injury and also abused in a filthy language and also caused life
threat and immediately he was taken to Chigateri Zilla Hospital,
wherein he took the treatment and thereafter he went to
Harihara police and lodged the complaint and also he identifies
the document Ex.P.2 and his signature. In the complaint, a
specific allegation is made against the petitioners and it is not in
dispute that in the FIR, these petitioners were also the accused
persons and subsequently while filing the charge-sheet, these
two petitioners were dropped and hence during the course of
examination, P.W.2 has reiterated the very overt-act of these
petitioners. When such being the factual aspects of the case,
the Trial Court rightly invoked Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and the
very proviso to Section 319 of Cr.P.C. can be pressed into
service when the witness injured comes and deposes before the
Court regarding involvement and overt-act of the petitioners.
6. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of
HARDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 has observed under what
circumstances the Court can invoke 319 application to bring the
assailants before the Court. Hence, I do not find any merit in
the petition to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. The
Trial Court has not committed any error and has taken note of
the evidence of P.W.2 while passing the order and particularly
discussed in paragraph No.6 regarding dropping of these
petitioners and also filing of the charge-sheet against only
accused Nos.1 and 2. During the course of cross-examination, it
is elicited that P.W.2 has specifically stated in the FIR as well as
in the evidence before the Court that these petitioners have
assaulted him and hence I do not find any ground to interfere
with the order of the Trial Court exercising the revisional
jurisdiction.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
