Karnataka High Court
Jagadish C V vs State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45931
CRL.P No. 6291 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6291 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
JAGADISH C.V
S/O VENKATESH N
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
PRESENT R/AT NO.18
CHENNEGOWDANA DODDI
VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI
SHANUMANGALA POST
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGENDRA B, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
POLICE STATION, REP BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally HIGH COURT BUILDING
signed by
NANDINI MS BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka 2. XXX
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.R. PATIL., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.594/2024 (CR.NO.316/2016) OF
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE, ON THE FILE OF LV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-56) AT BENGALURU FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 144, 341, 307, 427, 332, 353, 435 R/W
149 OF IPC, SEC. 3 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO THE PUBLIC
PROPERTY ACT AND SEC. 2(B) AND 2(A) OF KARNATAKA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45931
CRL.P No. 6291 of 2024
PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT
AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused No.4 in SC No.594/2024 pending on the file of
LV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of
Crime No.316/2016 registered by Kumaraswamy Layout Police
Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 3
of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984,
Sections 2(B) and 2(A) of the Karnataka Prevention of
Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 and Sections 143,
144, 341, 307, 427, 332, 353, 435 and 149 of IPC, is before
this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash
the entire proceedings as against him.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.316/2016 was registered by
Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 332, 149 and 435 of
IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
NC: 2024:KHC:45931
Property Act, 1984, against unknown persons and after
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed as against
11 persons for the aforesaid offences. It appears that though
the charge sheeted offences were exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate had taken
cognizance of the charge sheeted offences and after framing
charges, had recorded the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses. When the matter was at the stage of passing the
judgment, learned Magistrate having realized that he had no
jurisdiction to try the case, had committed the case to Court of
jurisdictional Sessions Judge and the case is now pending
before the Court of LV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, in SC No.594/2024. Being aggrieved by the same,
petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge
sheet witnesses, who were examined by the learned Magistrate
in CC No.6735/2023 had turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, there is no purpose in conducting the
trial afresh by the learned Sessions Judge. He submits that
pendency of the criminal case has been causing untold hardship
to the petitioner. Omnibus allegations are made against the
NC: 2024:KHC:45931
accused persons in the charge sheet. Accordingly, he prays to
allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He
submits that trial was conducted by the learned Magistrate,
who had no jurisdiction to try the case and therefore, evidence
recorded if any, by the learned Magistrate was one without
jurisdiction. He submits that the case is now committed to the
jurisdictional Sessions Court and summons has already been
issued to accused persons. It is for the accused persons to
appear before the jurisdictional Sessions Court and participate
in the trial. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The material on record would go to show that charge
sheet was filed in the present case after investigation, as
against 11 persons and the charge sheeted offences are
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions Judge. Learned
Magistrate after filing of charge sheet, instead of committing
the case to the jurisdictional Sessions Court had himself tried
the case and even proceeded to frame charges and record the
evidence of charge sheet witnesses. It is only at the later stage
when he came to know that he had no jurisdiction to try the
NC: 2024:KHC:45931
case, he had committed the case to the Court of jurisdictional
Sessions Judge and the case is now pending before the
jurisdictional Sessions Judge in SC No.594/2024. The learned
Sessions Judge has now issued summons to all the accused
persons. At this stage, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. As rightly contended by learned HCGP, even if the
witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution
during the course of trial conducted by the learned Magistrate
in CC No.6735/2023, it is of no consequence since the learned
Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the charge sheeted
offences. The entire proceedings before the learned Magistrate
is vitiated for the simple reason that he had no jurisdiction to
try the case. That being so, evidence if any, recorded by him is
of no significance and the same cannot be taken into
consideration. On the ground that witnesses examined before
the learned Magistrate had turned hostile in proceedings which
was conducted by him without jurisdiction, the prayer made by
the petitioner in the present petition cannot be granted. Under
the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain
this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty
to the petitioner to file necessary application before the
NC: 2024:KHC:45931
jurisdictional Sessions Court under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
seeking his discharge.
8. In the event, petitioner files such an application, the
learned Sessions Judge shall consider the same on merits
without being influenced by the order passed by this Court in
this petition.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN
