Karnataka High Court

Smt Shobha W/O. Somashekar Hiremath vs Somashekar S/O. Basayya Hiremath on 7 August, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                   -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:9993
                                                         CRL.P No. 102915 of 2025


                       HC-KAR



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                           DHARWAD BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

                                                BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                                CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102915 OF 2025
                                       (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SOMASHEKAR HIREMATH,
                      AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWORK,
                      R/O. BENAKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. DHARWAD,
                      NOW: BANAGAR ONI, NEAR MURUGHA MATH,
                      DIST. DHARWAD- 591222.
                                                                      ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   SOMASHEKAR S/O. BASAYYA HIREMATH,
                           AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK,
                           R/O. BENAKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. DHARWAD,
                           DIST. DHARWAD- 581103.
RAKESH
S
HARIHAR               2.   BASAYYA S/O. RACHAYYA HIREMATH,
Digitally signed by
                           AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED PERSON,
RAKESH S HARIHAR
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
                           R/O. BENAKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. DHARWAD,
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD                    DIST. DHARWAD- 581103.

                      3.   SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. BASAYYA HIREMATH,
                           AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK,
                           R/O. BENAKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. DHARWAD,
                           DIST. DHARWAD- 581103.

                      4.   SMT. VIJAYALAXMI
                           W/O. CHANNAYYA GADDADEVARAMATH,
                           AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK,
                           R/O. GULAGANJIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. LAXMESHWAR,
                           DIST. GADAG- 582210.
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:9993
                                     CRL.P No. 102915 of 2025


 HC-KAR



5.   CHANNAYYA @ CHANNABSAYYA
     S/O. FAKKIRAYYA GUDDAVARAMATH,
     AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. GULAGANJIKOPPA VILLAGE,
     TQ. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG -582210.

6.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     SPP OFFICE,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD -580011,
     THROUGH PSI,
     DHARWAD WOMEN POLICE STATION.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE
IMPUGNED    ORDER     DATED   05/06/2025   ORDER    MADE   ON
APPLICATION U/SEC. 242 OF CR.P.C AND ANOTHER APPLICATION
U/SEC. 311 OF CR.P.C IN C.C NO.2840/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 504,506,323, R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION
3 AND 4 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE IVTH ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT
DHARWAD., CONSEQUENTLY, BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATIONS
FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND F RESPECTIVELY
AS PRAYED THEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY B.
PASS ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDER UNDER THE FACT AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AT HAND IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                             -3-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:9993
                                        CRL.P No. 102915 of 2025


HC-KAR



                       ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. Petitioner, who is the defacto complainant, is

before this Court assailing the order dated 05.06.2025

passed on the application filed by the prosecution under

Sections 242 and 311 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.2840/2019 by

the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Dharwad registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 149 of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961, with a prayer to quash the aforesaid

order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after

reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that

if the prosecution is not permitted to produce additional

documents, the case of the prosecution will be seriously

prejudiced. The said documents were submitted by the

defacto complainant to the investigating officer during the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9993

HC-KAR

course of investigation, however they were not included as

part of the charge sheet. He submits that Section 242 of

Cr.P.C. provides ampful power to the Courts to take all

such material produced on behalf of the prosecution at any

stage. In support of his contention, he has relied on the

order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.13023/2023

disposed off on 27.03.2024.

4. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime

No.8/2019 registered by Dharwad Women Police Station,

Dharwad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,

504, 506, 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed

in the said case against respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein. In

the said proceedings, at the stage of recording of

statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,

two separate applications under Sections 242 and 311 of

Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution were rejected by the trial

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9993

HC-KAR

Court vide the order impugned. Aggrieved by the same,

the defacto complainant is before this Court.

5. It is not in dispute that the documents which

are now sought to be produced were not part of the

charge sheet. The trial in the case had commenced in the

year 2021. The defacto complainant was examined before

the trial Court in the month of June 2023. Thereafter,

other charge sheet witnesses were examined before the

trial Court and after the prosecution had closed its side of

evidence, the matter was posted before the trial Court for

the purpose of recording the statement of the accused

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It is at this stage,

prosecution had filed two separate applications under

Sections 242 and 311 of Cr.P.C. which were rejected on

05.06.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, defacto

complainant is before this Court.

6. Section 242 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:

"242. Evidence for prosecution.-(1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9993

HC-KAR

or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 241, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses:

Provided that the Magistrate shall supply in advance to the accused, the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation by the police.

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

(3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution:

Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross- examination."

7. Section 242(2) of Cr.P.C. provides that on the

application of the prosecution, the Magistrate may issue

summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or

to produce any document or other thing. Sub-section (3)

of Section 242 of Cr.P.C. provides that Magistrate shall

proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in

support of the prosecution. Though this provision of law

empowers the Magistrate to take all such material which is

not collected during the course of investigation, the Courts

are required to be cautious while granting permission and

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9993

HC-KAR

should ensure that it will not prejudice the defence of the

accused. In the case on hand, trial has commenced in the

year 2021 and at the stage of recording the statement of

the material witnesses, the present applications are filed.

8. Learned Magistrate has taken note of the fact

that applications do not disclose what are the documents

the prosecution is intending to produce. In the absence of

prosecution furnishing necessary particulars of the

documents which it intends to produce, the Courts cannot

be expected to pass a sweeping order under Section 242

of Cr.P.C. permitting the prosecution to produce additional

document which is not part of the charge sheet, more so,

when the charge sheet witnesses are completely examined

before the Court. If such applications are allowed, the

defence of the accused may be prejudiced and opportunity

to fill up the lacuna in the case would be available to the

prosecution.

9. The order passed in Crl.P.No.13023 of 2023,

therefore cannot be made applicable to the present case

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9993

HC-KAR

since the application filed on behalf of the prosecution

lacks necessary particulars of the documents and such

application is filed at a very belated stage of proceedings.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Md.Ghouseuddin Vs.Syed Riazul Hussain and

Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3315 in

paragraph 6 has observed as follows:

"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that even if the question as to the jurisdiction of the High Court need not be over- emphasized, the fact remains that the Trial Court had given sound and tangible reasons for rejecting the application for summoning of the document(s) - moved at such a belated stage and without any justification for such relief. The High Court has completely glossed over this aspect in the impugned judgment. The right to summon document(s), indeed, is available but that has to be exercised when the trial is in progress and not when the trial is completed, including after the statement of accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code had been recorded. The efficacy of the trial cannot be whittled down by such belated application."

11. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion

that the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9993

HC-KAR

application filed by the prosecution under Section 242 of

Cr.P.C. with a prayer to produce documents which were

not part of the charge sheet material. Relief sought for in

the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is

consequential to the order passed under Section 242 of

Cr.P.C. Since the learned Magistrate has rejected the

application filed by the prosecution under Section 242 of

Cr.P.C., I find no irregularity and illegality in he rejecting