Karnataka High Court
Sri Neelappa S/O Ningappa Badami vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12923
CRL.P No. 102725 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102725 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NEELAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA BADAMI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SRI. MANJAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA BADAMI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA BADAMI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. SRI. LAXMANNA S/O. NINGAPPA BADAMI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. SMT. SUVARNA W/O. NEELAPPA BADAMI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. SMT. HULIGAVVA MANJAPPA BADAMI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR 7. SRI. CHANNAVEERAPPA S/O. BASAPPA SHYALI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
8. SRI. NAGASHAPPA S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA SHYALI,
Location: AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 9. SRI. FAKKIRESH CHANNAVEERAPPA SHYALI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
10. SMT. SHOBHAKKA NAGESH SHYALI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
11. SMT. RATNAVVA CHANNAVEERAPPA SHYALI,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
12. SRI. KRISHNAPPA NEELAPPA BADAMI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12923
CRL.P No. 102725 of 2024
13. SRI. NINGAPPA VEERABHADRAGOUDA AYANAGOUDA,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
14. SMT. DEVAKKA NINGAPPA BADAMI,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O: CHIKKWADDATTI, TQ: MUNDARGI,
DIST: GADAG - 582 118.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS MUNDARGI P.S,
GADAG THROUGH
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HCK.
DHARWAD.- 580005.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2024 MADE IN CC
NO. 493/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MUNDARGI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 323, 324, 447 354(b), 504,
506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUANCE OF SHOW
CAUSE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 6, 8 TO 16.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners who are sought
to be arraigned as accused on application under Section 319
of Cr.P.C. challenging the notice issued to them on
application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12923
C.C.No.493/2017 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC,
Mundargi. In C.C.No. 493/2017 an application has been filed
by learned APP under Section 319 of Cr.P.C seeking adding
of the petitioners herein as accused persons on the basis of
evidence of PW1 & 2 and the learned trial Judge has issued
show cause notice to the petitioners. Issuance of said notice
has been sought to be quashed in the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for petitioners relying on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Yashodhan Singh and Others v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another1 would contend that there is no
mandate of law under Section 319 of Cr.P.C to issue notice
to the persons who are sought to be arraigned as accused
persons. On that ground, he sought quashing of the notice
issued to the petitioners.
2023 Live Law (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12923
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent/State.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Yashodhan Singh and Others V/s State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another (supra) held as under:
" 32. Merely because in certain proceedings the
persons summoned had been provided an opportunity of
being heard cannot be the same thing as stating that it is a
mandatory requirement or a precondition that at the time of
summoning a person under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., he
should be given an opportunity of being heard. That is not
the mandate of law inasmuch as Section 319 clearly uses the
expression "to proceed" which means to proceed with the
trial and not to jeopardise the trial at the instance of the
person(s) summoned by conducting a mini trial or a trial
within a trial thereby derailing the main trial of the case and
particularly against the accused who are already facing trail
and who may be in custody. A person who is summoned in
exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot hijack
the trial so to say and deviate from its focus and take it to a
tangent in order to bolster his own case in a bid to escape
trial. All that is contemplated when a person is summoned to
appear is to ascertain that he is the very person who was
summoned and if any summoned person fails to appear on
the given date. On the appearance of the summoned person,
no procedure of an inquiry or opportunity of being heard is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12923
envisaged before been added as an accused to the list of
accused already facing trial unless such a summoned person
had already been discharged, in which event, an inquiry is
contemplated as discussed above. Thus, the contention that a
summoned person must be given an opportunity of being
heard before being added as an accused to face the trial is
clearly not contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also
observed by this Court in Hardeep Singh that such a
summoned person can assail a summoning order before a
superior Court and will also have the right of cross examining
the witnesses as well as can let in his defence evidence, if
any.
33. Thus, the lateral entry of a person summoned in
exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is only to face
the trial along with other accused. This, being a salutary
provision in order to meet the ends of justice, the same
cannot be diluted by importing within the scope of Section
319 Cr.P.C. principles of natural justice which in any case
would be followed during the trial.
It is well settled that principles of natural justice cannot
be applied in strait-jacket formula and they would depend
upon the facts of each case and the object and purpose to be
achieved under a provision of law.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not think
that the judgment in Jogendra Yadav calls for any re-
consideration and the said observation in paragraph 9 as
extracted supra is relatable only to the facts of the said case.
Thus, the principle of hearing a person who is summoned
cannot be read into Section 319 Cr.P.C. Such a procedure is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12923
not at all contemplated therein. In the circumstances, we do
not accept the contentions of the appellants herein."
5. In view of the above, the notice issued to the
petitioners on an application filed under Section 319 of
Cr.P.C. requires to be quashed.
6. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Mundargi, in
C.C.No.493/2017 issuing notice to the
petitioners on application filed under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C is quashed.
iii. The learned Magistrate is directed to
dispose of the application filed under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C on merits in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
kmv
CT:ANB
