Karnataka High Court
Sri.Irappa S/O Vishnu Londekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2023
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 101803 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101803 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. IRAPPA S/O. VISHNU LONDEKAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NAGURDAWADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KHANAPUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI 2. SRI. BALU S/O. CHIMAJI BIRJE,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR R/O: NAGURDAWADA,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI TALUK: KHANAPUR,
Date: 2023.06.09
11:08:17 -0700 DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
3. SRI. PUNNAPPA S/O. CHIMAJI BIRJE,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
R/O: NAGURDAWADA,
TALUK: KHANAPUR,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
4. SRI. DHAKALU S/O. CHIMAJI BIRJE,
AGE: 49 YEARS,
-2-
CRL.P No. 101803 of 2019
R/O: NAGURDAWADA,
TALUK: KHANAPUR,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
5. SRI.RAMACHANDRA S/O. PUNNAPPA BIRJE,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
R/O: NAGORDAWADA,
TALUK: KHANAPUR,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
6. SRI. VINOD S/O. DHAKALU BIRJE,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
R/O: NAGORDAWADA,
TALUK: KHANAPUR,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
7. SRI. GAJANAN S/O. BALU BIRJE,
AGE: 24 YEARS, R/O: NAGORDAWADA,
TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
8. SRI. NAGESH S/O. BALU BIRJE,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
R/O: NAGORDAWADA,
TALUK: KHANAPUR,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
9. SRI. SANTOSH S/O. BALU BIRJE,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
R/O: NAGORDAWADA,
TALUK: KHANAPUR,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
10. SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O. MARUTI BARAGANVKAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
R/O: NAGORDAWADA,
TALUK: KHANAPUR,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
11. SRI. DHINANATH
S/O. PURUSHUTTAM REVANAKAR,
AGE: 69 YEARS, R/O: NAGORDAWADA,
TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
-3-
CRL.P No. 101803 of 2019
12. SRI. BALIRAM S/O. JYOTHIBA GURUV,
AGE: 55 YEARS, R/O: NAGORDAWADA,
TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R7;
NOTICE TO R8-R12 ARE SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2018
PASSED AN APPLICATION IN C.C.NO.966/2017 PASSED BY THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, KHANAPUR FOR THE
OFFENCES U/S 354(A), 506, 143, 147, 504, 148, 447, 307,
324, 323, 149 OF IPC AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION THROUGH
HIGHER OFFICERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused
the records on admission.
2. The present petition is filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-
"To set aside the order dated 01.10.2018
passed an application in C.C.No.966/2017 passed
by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Khanapur
for the offences u/s 354(A), 506, 143, 147, 504,
148, 447, 307, 324, 323, 149 of IPC and allow
the application filed by the petitioner for further
investigation through higher officers."
CRL.P No. 101803 of 2019
3. Though the matter is listed for admission
by consent of the parties, it is taken up for final
disposal.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under :-
A complaint came to be filed by petitioner
herein which was registered by Khanapur Police in
Crime No.60/2017 on 11.02.2017 initially for the
offences punishable U/sec.354A, 506, 14, 147, 504,
148, 447, 307, 324, 323, r/w Section 149 IPC.
Police after registering the case filed the charge
sheet for the offences punishable U/sec.143, 147,
323, 325, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 IPC.
Being aggrieved by the same, defacto
complainant filed an application U/sec.173(8) before
the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking for further
investigation of the matter. The same was rejected
on contest. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner is before this Court.
CRL.P No. 101803 of 2019
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the
petition, Sri H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently contended that at the instance
of the accused persons, investigation agency has
conducted investigation in a perfunctory manner and
filed the charge sheet giving up the offence
U/sec.307 IPC which is per se illegal and therefore,
the defacto complainant had every right seeking the
further investigation of the matter and the said
application has been improperly considered by the
trial Court and rejected the same and sought for
allowing the petition and direct the further
investigation of the matter.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader supports the impugned order by contending
that the police after thorough investigation filed
charge sheet and if it is not acceptable to the
petitioner, the remedy was to file a protest petition
or to place additional material before the trial Court
which would attract the offence U/sec.307 IPC and
CRL.P No. 101803 of 2019
not to file an application U/sec.173(8) Cr.P.C. and
therefore, rightly the trial Court rejected the prayer
of the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the
petition.
7. Sri Sanjay S.Katageri, learned counsel
representing the accused persons adopting the
arguments put forth on behalf of learned High Court
Government Pleader sought for dismissal of the
petition.
8. In view of the rival contentions of the
parties, this Court perused the material on record
meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the material on record,
no doubt at the first instance an FIR came to be
registered against the accused persons for the
offence U/sec.307 IPC as well. However at the time
of filing charge sheet, for want of necessary material
evidence on record, the Investigation Officer in his
discretion dropped the investigation U/sec.307 IPC
CRL.P No. 101803 of 2019
as against the petitioner. However he has invoked
Section 325 IPC which offence if proved is
punishable with life imprisonment.
10. Being aggrieved by the same, the defacto
complainant filed an application seeking for further
investigation U/sec.173(8) Cr.P.C. The matter was
contested and after considering the application
urged on behalf of the defacto complainant as well
as the accused persons, the trial Court passed the
order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner
herein by order dated 01.10.2018.
11. It is seen that the order rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner, is a speaking
order. The learned trial Judge has bestowed his
attention stating that to the relevant materials on
record and held that the Court has already framed
the charges and issued the summons to the
witnesses to depose before the Court. Prosecution
after recording of the evidence of the material
witnesses will definitely have a chance to file an
CRL.P No. 101803 of 2019
application for alteration of charge as is
contemplated U/sec.216 of Cr.P.C. Such a liberty is
also reserved by the learned Judge in the impugned
order. It is the exclusive power of the Court to alter
the charge that has been conferred U/sec.216
Cr.P.C. The wordings in Section 216 Cr.P.C. would
give ample power for the trial Court to alter the
charge at any time before the judgment is
pronounced.
12. Therefore, unless the complainant and his
material witnesses are examined and such material
is placed on record, the Court may not be in a
position to alter the charge or direct the further
investigation in the matter. The filing of the charge
sheet by the investigation agency is the exclusive
arena of the investigation agency. The investigation
officer would be definitely examined before the
Court on behalf of the prosecution and it is always
open for the Court to consider the perfunctory or
otherwise of the investigation in the matter or the
CRL.P No. 101803 of 2019
Court may exercise its power vested in it U/sec.216
Cr.P.C. if there is any material placed on record on
behalf of the prosecution invoking offence U/sec.307
IPC, if required.
13. Reserving such liberty for the petitioner,
following order is passed.
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK
