Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Gangamma @ Basamma Gundappa Edgar ... on 17 January, 2023
Bench: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201585/2021
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANDHI GUNJ POLICE STATION,
BIDAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS,
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
KALABURAGI BENCH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
AND:
1. GANGAMMA @ BASAMMA
W/O GUNDAPPA EDGAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O VILLAGE BAWGI,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585 226.
NOW AT PUNE
MAHARASHTRA.
2. GUNDAPPA S/O RAMAYYA EDGAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE BAWGI,
2
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585 226.
NOW AT PUNE, MAHARASHTRA.
3. SUDHAKAR S/O GUNDAPPA EDGAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE BAWGI,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR- 585 226.
NOW AT PUNE, MAHARASHTRA.
4. RAVI S/O GUNDAPPA EDGAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE BAWGI,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR,
NOW AT PUNE, MAHARASTRA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVASHARANA REDDY,
& SRI S.M.KANDAKUR, ADVOCATES)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 16.10.2020 PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITION NO.51/2019 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR AND CONSEQUENTLY
CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC - II AT BIDAR IN C.C.NO.151/2015
DATED 13.06.2019 AND TO REMIT THE MATTER FOR
TRIAL.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the petitioner and Sri
Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-
"Wherefore, the petitioner-State most
respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to allow the above petition and set aside
the Order dated 16.10.2020 passed in Criminal
Revision Petition No.51/2019 by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge at Bidar and
consequently confirm the Order passed by the
Principal Civil Judge & JMFC-II at Bidar in
C.C.No.151/2015 dated 13.06.2019 and to
remit the matter for trial, in the interest of
justice and equity."
3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of
the petition are as under:
4. Accused/respondent was charged with offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
aforesaid offences and proceeded against the respondents.
In the meantime, respondents filed an application before
the jurisdictional Magistrate contending that respondents
were permanent residents of Pune and therefore, they had
no direct or indirect nexus with the alleged crime and
sought for discharge of the petitioners.
6. Learned Magistrate after considering the
material on record, dismissed the application filed by the
respondents and proceeded with the case.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, a revision
petition came to be filed by the accused respondents
before the Principal District And Sessions Judge in Criminal
Revision Petition No.51/2019 on the file of learned
Sessions judge, Bidar. After securing the records and after
following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the
subject, learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision
petition filed by the respondents and discharged the
respondents from the criminal charges leveled against
them. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has
preferred the petition on the following grounds:
x "The impugned order is opposed to law, facts
and circumstances of the case and the same is
liable to be quashed.
x That, the impugned Order passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bidar is
contrary to the facts, law and material on record
and as such, same is liable to be set aside.
x The reasons assigned by the Court below while
passing impugned Order are erroneous and as
such same is liable to be set aside.
x That, the Sessions Court was not considered the
charge sheet witnesses which were believable
for the involvement of the accused.
x There is a specific overt act and prima facie
against the respondents.
x That the above stated offences are all warrant
cases. After completing the investigation, the
I.O. has filed the final report which clearly
shows the involvement of accused No.2 to 5 in
committing the above Crime.
x As per the medical Certificate the complainant
sustained simple injuries due to assault by the
Accused No.2 to 5. Therefore, when there is a
prima facie case against the accused/
Respondent herein, the Courts below ought not
to have passed the impugned Order as stated
above, which has to be proved only after full
fledged trial. Discharging the accused without
going for trial is premature stage. Hence, the
impugned is requires to set aside.
x Thus viewed from any angle, the impugned
order of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to
be set aside.
x Some more ground or grounds would be urged
at the time of argument."
8. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
learned High Court Government Pleader contended that
the learned Sessions Judge has improperly exercised the
jurisdiction in discharging the respondents for the
aforesaid charges and sought for allowing the petition.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents vehemently contended that learned Sessions
Judge took into consideration all the relevant aspects of
the matter including principles of law enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and properly exercised its jurisdiction
and discharged the respondents from aforesaid charges
and sought for dismissal of the petition.
10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On perusal of the material on record, it is seen
that respondents are permanent residents of Pune and the
incident said to have been taken place in Bidar district
since the respondents do not share common roof, the
cruelty imparted to the complainant was properly
appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge while passing
the impugned judgment.
12. In view of the limited scope in reviewing such
an order by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
this Court looked into the material on record and is
satisfied that learned Sessions Judge has rightly exercised
the duty in discharging against the present respondents for
the aforesaid offences.
13. Thus, the grounds urged in this petition are
hardly sufficient to interfere with the order of learned
Sessions Judge in discharging the respondents from the
aforesaid offences.
14. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
Criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
