Karnataka High Court
Lakshmi A G vs State Of Karnataka By on 11 January, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1579
CRL.P No. 13704 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13704 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMI A G
W/O JAYASHANKAR K N
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT G-02,
RIQUEZA BARBIE APARTMENT,
21ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR V R GOKULAM,
NISARGA LAYOUT,
HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114.
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. SRI. JAYASHANKAR K N
S/O NARAYANA SWAMY K N
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT G-02,
RIQUEZA BARBIE APARTMENT,
Digitally signed by
21ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR V R GOKULAM,
VEDAVATHI A K NISARGA LAYOUT,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114.
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VENKATRAMAN NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1579
CRL.P No. 13704 of 2023
2. SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA M
S/O LATE MUSALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
SADLAVARAPALLI VILLAGE,
MALLASANDRA POST,
BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 572 107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
11.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHIKKABALLAPURA IN
S.C.NO.23/2022 IN ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT/PROSECUTION UNDER SEC.319 OF CRPC
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT U/S.319 OF CPRC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and
5 under section 482 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order
passed by the trial court in S.C.No.23/2022, pending before III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, by
adding these petitioners as additional accused persons by
allowing the application under section 319 of Cr.P.C., filed by
the Public Prosecutor.
NC: 2024:KHC:1579
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners
and learned HCGP. Issuing notice to respondent No.2 is
dispensed with.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of
respondent No.2, the Chikkabalapura Police registered the FIR
in Crime No.24/2022 against these petitioners and accused
Nos.1 to 3 for the offense punishable under sections 498A,
304B, 302 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'D.P. Act')
After the investigation, the Investigation Officer dropped these
petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5, from the charge sheet and
sent the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the trial. After the committing
of the case to the Court of Session, the accused Nos.1 to 3
appeared and they pleaded not guilty, while framing the
charge. Subsequently, the complainant who is father of the
deceased was examined as P.W.1 and the mother of deceased
as P.W.2. The brother of deceased was examined as P.W.3.
One Anil Kumar was examined as P.W.4. During the course of
evidence, these witnesses spoken about the offence against
these petitioners. They also harassed the deceased when they
were staying with the deceased in the house of the accused
NC: 2024:KHC:1579
Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor moved an
application under section 319 of Cr.P.C., for summoning these
accused persons as additional accused to try along with the
other accused. A notice was issued to these petitioners. They
have filed objection before the Sessions judge. Subsequently,
the impugned order came to be allowed, which is under
challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously
contended there is omnibus statement made by the
complainant in his statement and evidence. There is no specific
allegation against these petitioners for having involvement of
the commission of offence either under Section 498A or 302B
of IPC and 3 and 4 of DP Act. The petitioner No.1, is a married
woman residing along with her husband petitioner No.2 at
Hoskote, which is long distance from the Chikkaballapur. The
Investigation Officer after thorough investigation, dropped
these petitioners name in the charge sheet. Such being the
case, when there is no material against these petitioners,
question of adding as additional accused in criminal case, does
not arises. Therefore, prayed for quashing the order.
NC: 2024:KHC:1579
5. Per contra learned HCGP objected the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments, perused the records
especially the complaint made by the respondent No.2/defacto
complainant, who is father of deceased. According to her
complaint, the deceased daughter was married to the accused
No.1 who is brother of this petitioner No.1. After the marriage,
during the lockdown, the accused No.1 and the deceased also
were staying and were working from home. The present
petitioner being sister of accused No.1 and accused No.5, who
is husband of the accused No.4 were staying in the house of
accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of the accused No.1.
During the stay, the accused persons said to have harassed the
deceased physically and mentally by demanding additional
dowry and said to be paid Rs.2 lakhs by transferring the
amount to the account of accused No.1 and also borrowing loan
of Rs.20,000/- from friend of the deceased and transferred to
the accused. As per the complaint, these petitioners also were
harassing the deceased and she used to inform the same to the
parents. These petitioners name was arraigned as accused
Nos.4 and 5 in the FIR. However, the Investigating Officer
dropped their names in the charge sheet stating that, there is
NC: 2024:KHC:1579
no sufficient material or evidence against them. Subsequent to
the trial, when P.W.1 was examined, though he has not stated
in the first instance in the examination chief, however, he has
stated at para No.4, that these two petitioners were residing in
the house of accused Nos.1 to 3. The public prosecutor treated
these witnesses as hostile and in the cross examination, he has
admitted that these accused Nos.4 and 5 also harassed the
deceased, due to which she has committed suicide. Apart from
that P.W.2/Manjulamma mother of deceased, she also stated
that this accused No.4 also used to insult and abuse her, as she
was not interested in marrying the deceased for her brother,
inspite of that they were married, due to which there were lot
of problems, which they were facing. Para 6 of the evidence of
P.W.2, where there is allegation made against these two
petitioners. Likewise, P.W.3 and P.W.4 also stated in their
evidence about these petitioners. Their evidence was not cross
examined by counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3. It is well settled
by Hon'ble' Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, when the material is placed on
record, it is more than the framing of charge and less than the
conviction. If strong evidence is made, the accused can be
NC: 2024:KHC:1579
summoned as co-accused for trying together with the main
accused. It is well settled by Hon'ble' Supreme Court in Catena
of decisions and also the judgment relied by the trial court in
Crl.A.No.396/2019, Khusbu Gupta VS State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors, where the evidence of prosecution
witnesses were shown or the allegation made against the
petitioner in the complaint has been adduced before the court.
There is no other option for the public prosecutor or even the
complainant who can file the application for summoning the
accused who are left out from the charge sheet, even though
they are arraigned as accused in the FIR. Such being the case,
when the presumption under Section 113 (B) of Evidence Act is
available to the prosecution, the accused is required to rebut
the same after leading the evidence by the prosecution. The
evidence of PW1 to PW4 is not impeached by the accused
counsel and deferred for cross examination. Therefore, I am of
the view, when the material placed on record for having
involvement of the commission of offence for abusing and
harassing the deceased by the accused persons and in-laws
which attracts 498A of IPC. Though, section 302 of IPC was
also included in FIR, but it was dropped from the charge sheet.
NC: 2024:KHC:1579
The offence also attracts sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Such
being the case, I am of the view, it is not a fit case for
interfering with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
Hence, petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
