Karnataka High Court
Shri. Appuni Alias Ravi vs The Editor on 15 June, 2023
Bench: Anil B Katti
-1-
CRL.A No. 100056 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100056 OF 2022 (A-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. APPUNI @ RAVI S/O. SHANKAR AJJANI,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KEDNUR, TAL & DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A. B. NESARGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EDITOR
'PUDHARI' MARATHI DAILY NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHED AND CIRCULATED FROM BELAGAVI.
2. THE EDITOR
Digitally
signed by J
'SAKAL' MARATHI DAILY NEWSPAPER
MAMATHA
J
Date:
PUBLISHED AND CIRCULATED FROM BELAGAVI.
MAMATHA 2023.06.19
14:44:48 -
0700 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARATNA S. PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS III COURT, BELAGAVI IN C.C. NO.1020/2013 DATED
15.02.2021 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 143, 147, 499, 501, 502, 503,
504, 506, R/W 149 OF IPC, MAY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL.
-2-
CRL.A No. 100056 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant/accused feeling aggrieved by order passed by
the trial Court on the file of JMFC-III, Belagavi, dated
15.2.2021, preferred this appeal.
2. Leave is granted to appellant/accused to prosecute the
appeal.
3. The matter though listed for admission, with consent of
both sides taken up for final disposal.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides.
5. Complainant filed P.C.No.549/2009 on the file of III
JMFC, Belagavi against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 499, 501, 502, 503, 504 and 506
R/w. Section 149 of I.P.C. The trial Court has referred
complaint to jurisdictional police station under Section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C. The jurisdictional police on enquiry submitted 'B'
summary report. Complainant filed protest petition and
examined witnesses on his behalf. The trial Court after hearing
on protest petition, dismissed complaint by order dated
21.12.2011. Complainant challenged the same before Sessions
CRL.A No. 100056 of 2022
Court under Revision Petition No.559/2011, which came to be
allowed in part by order dated 20.7.2013 and directed the trial
Court to take cognizance in respect of the present respondents.
Thereafter, summons was issued to accused Nos. 1 and 2 and
they have appeared through their counsel. The matter came to
be adjourned from time to time. The trial Court by order dated
15.2.2021, dismissed the case for non-prosecution. The said
order was challenged before VI Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Belagavi in Crl.R.P.No.206/2021. The Revisional Court
by order dated 7.1.2022, dismissed the revision petition as not
maintainable and the appeal has to be filed in view of the
principles enunciated in the judgment of Honb'le Apex Court in
V.K.Bhat V/s. Ravi Kishore, reported in (2016) 13 SCC
243.
6. Appellant/complainant has now filed the present appeal,
challenging the order of trial Court dated 15.2.2021, dismissing
the complaint for non-prosecution. The order of taking
cognizance against respondent Nos.1 and 2 in view of Sessions
Judge order in Crl.R.P.No.559/2011, has not been challenged.
The scope of this appeal is only to decide as to whether order
CRL.A No. 100056 of 2022
of the trial Court dated 15.2.201, dismissing the case for non-
prosecution can be legally sustained or not.
7. Learned counsel for appellant/complainant argued that
during COVID period entry of litigants was restricted and after
some time it was relaxed, but it is only for the limited period.
Therefore, complainant could not appear before the Court. The
trial Court, under such circumstance, was not justified in
dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Nagaratna S Pattar, who
appears through video conference for respondent No.2 argued
that trial Court has given sufficient opportunity to complainant
for leading evidence and the same was not availed by
complainant. Therefore, trial Court left with no option than to
dismiss the case for non-prosecution and hence, the trial Court
was justified to dismiss the case for non-prosecution.
9. On perusal of the certified copy of the entire order sheet
produced by learned counsel for the appellant, it would go to
show that on 21.10.2013 cognizance was taken against
accused Nos. 1 and 2 and ordered to issue summons. On
23.7.2014, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared before the trial
Court and were released on bail. Thereafter, the matter came
CRL.A No. 100056 of 2022
to be adjourned from time to time on one or the other reason.
The order sheet would further goes to show that on some
occasion, the matter was posted for recording of plea and some
time, it was posted for EBC (Evidence Before Charge). On
15.1.2021, the matter was adjourned for hearing clarification of
the Court. There is no any reference on 19.1.2021 and
1.2.2021 that the trial Court has heard clarification, but instead
of it, matter stood posted for EBC finally. The trial Court by
taking note of absence of complainant and counsel on
15.2.2021, dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. The
Honb'le Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application
No.21/2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 3/2020 has
extended the period of limitation during COVID period from
15.3.2020 till 20.8.2022. It is not in dispute that during the
said period, this Court has issued circulars from time to time
and SOP regulating appearance of parties and counsel entry to
the Court premises. It is true that for some time in between the
above referred period, there was some relaxation with regard
to entry of litigants and advocates to enter the Court premises.
The trial Court has not recorded any reason in the order sheet
dated 15.2.2021 that on the said day entry of the litigant was
CRL.A No. 100056 of 2022
allowed and there was no any reason to adjourn the case for
further date. The trial Court only looking to the absence of the
complainant proceeded to dismiss the case for non-prosecution.
It is true that on the said date, accused Nos.1 and 2 were
present with their counsel. But that itself does not mean that
there was no restriction of entry of litigants and counsel in the
Court premises. The order sheet would go to show that in the
past, accused Nos.1 and 2 also remained absent and the
application was filed seeking exemption. If the matter is
allowed to be disposed of on merits then in that view of the
matter, no any serious prejudice would be caused to accused.
Looking to their presence before the Court on the date of
dismissal, if appropriate costs is imposed, then it would meet
the ends of justice. Consequently, proceed to pass the
following.
ORDER
Appeal filed by appellant/complainant is hereby allowed.
The order of trial Court on the file of JMFC-III, Belagavi,
dated 15.2.2021, dismissing the appeal filed by
appellant/accused for non-prosecution is hereby set aside.
CRL.A No. 100056 of 2022
In order to expedite hearing of the case, parties are
directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.7.2023
without there being any notice from the trial Court.
Appellant/complainant shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to
accused Nos.1 and 2.
The trial Court has to issue notice only to respondent
No.1 and then proceed to dispose of the same in accordance
with law as expeditiously as possible.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
VB
