Karnataka High Court
Balasaheb Barmgouda Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675
CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100068 OF 2018
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. BABUSAHEB BARMGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NEAR GOMTESH VIDYAPEETH,
BELAGAVI.
2. PARISH TAVANAPPA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. H.NO.123/B, HOSUR MATH GALLI,
SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI.
Digitally
signed by
VN
3. HANMANT YALLAPPA AADIN
VN BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
2025.04.02
11:19:01
AGED ABUT 24 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
+0530
R/O. MASTMARDI, NOW MARUTI MANDIR,
PIPELINE ROAD, BELAGAVI.
4. RAFIQ HUSAINSAB RAMAPUR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. SEPERVISOR,
R/O. H.NO.3935, HUSAIN MANZIL,
KALI AMBRAI, BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675
CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018
5. SUDHIR MAHAVEER UPADHYA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC. WORKING AT B.T. PATIL COMPANY,
R/O. H.NO.361, HALAGA BASTI GALLI,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TILAKWADI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HGIH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2018 PASSED BY XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.
177 OF 2017 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE SAME; CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER DATED
13.11.2015 PASSED BY JMFC IV COURT, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 580 OF 2013.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675
CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri.Aravind, D. Kulkarni, learned counsel
for revision petitioners and Sri.Praveena Y.
Devareddiyavaraa, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent-State.
2. Accused persons in C.C.No.580/2013 who are
facing trial before the learned JMFC IV Court, Belagavi for
the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447 and
427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, 'the IPC'). In respect of Crime No.91/2013,
presence of the accused persons was secured. An
application came to be filed by accused No.1 under Section
258 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'the
Cr.P.C.').
3. Learned trial Judge not noticing the intent and
object of Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., allowed the said
application and closed the criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.580/2013.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675
4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the
learned trial Magistrate, State filed a revision petition
before the District Judge in Crl.RP.No.177/2017.
5. Notice of the revision petition was issued and
the accused persons appeared before the Court and
opposed the ground of revision petition.
6. Learned Judge in the revisional Court, taking
into consideration the intent and object of the accused
raised necessary points and held that there were no
sufficient grounds for stopping of the proceedings under
Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. and the set aside the order of the
trial Magistrate following dictum of the law enunciated in State
of Karnataka Vs. Durgappa1 and allowed the revision petition
and remitted the matter for trial before the trial Magistrate.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revision
petitioners are before this Court.
8. Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
revision petitioners contended that the order of the
1975 Crl.L.J. 749 (Karnataka)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675
revisional Court is not sustainable in law in view of the
authoritative pronouncement this Court in
Crl.P.No.5934/2009.
9. He further contended that the material on
record did not warrant continuation of the criminal
proceedings and learned trial Magistrate exercising the
powers under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., was thus justified
and sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavara, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State
contended that the learned trial Magistrate wrongly stopped
the proceedings by exercising the powers under Section 258 of
the Cr.P.C. inasmuch as no witnesses were examined nor
charges were framed.
11. It is his further submission that stoppage of
proceedings under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. is a power vested
in the Magistrate which is be exercised very rarely that too, in
order to serve the ends of justice in the given case where there
is total lack participation by the prosecution.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675
12. Therefore, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara,
submits that order of the learned Judge in the revisional Court
perfectly justified in the attendant facts and circumstances of
the case and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously. On
such perusal of the material on record, it is found from the
complaint averments that on 15.05.2013 at about 6.00
p.m., accused persons said to have demolished the
compound wall and damaged the barbed wire fencing that
was surrounded to K.L.S Campus situated at Sy.No.58 and
61 within the limits of Tilakwadi Police Station Belagavi.
The cost of damage was estimated in sum of Rs.20,000/-.
The said damage is caused, despite there was order of an
protection granted by this Court in the civil proceedings
pending between the parties.
14. Police after registering the case in Crime
No.91/2013, investigated the matter thoroughly and filed
the charge sheet. Cognizance of the offences alleged
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675
against the petitioners were taken by the learned trial
Magistrate and they were summoned before the trial
Court.
15. It is at that juncture, accused No.1 filed the
application under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C..
16. For ready reference under Section 258 of the
Cr.P.C. is culled out hereunder:
"Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.)-Power to stop proceedings in certain cases- In any
summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a
Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of
the Chief Judicial magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate,
may, for reason to be recorded by him, stop the
proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any
judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made
after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been
recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any
other case, release the accused, and such release shall
have the effect of the discharge".
17. On careful reading of the above provision, it is
crystal clear that the trial Magistrate expected to exercise
the power under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., by recording
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675
sufficient reason for stoppage of proceedings or after
principal witnesses have been examined before the Court.
18. In the case on hand, since the offence
punishable under Section 447 of the IPC, has been
alleged, Magistrate was required to frame charges and
thereafter, proceeded with the case.
19. Without resorting to the same exercising the
power under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., has thus resulting
in injustice which has been cured by learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court by exercising the revisional
jurisdiction.
20. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court has
dealt with the principles of law enunciated in Durgappa's
case referred to supra, wherein the Co-ordinate the Bench
of this Court has observed that power under Section 258
of the Cr.P.C., of stopping further proceedings should be
exercised reasonably and judiciously only under special
and compelling circumstances.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675
21. In the impugned order what is the special and
compelling circumstances existed in the case on hand is
not even spelt out by the learned trial Magistrate.
Therefore, the order under revisional Court needs no
interference.
22. Further, reasons assigned in the order of
learned trial Magistrate does not contain as to what is the
miscarriage of justice that would have been caused by
continuing the criminal case, which is yet another factor to
be taken into consideration while exercising the power
vested in the trial Magistrate under Section 258 of the
Cr.P.C. Further, releasing of the accused by stoppage of
the proceedings would amount to discharge.
23. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged
in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to set aside the
well reasoned order of the learned judge in the revisional
Court which is impugned in this revision petition.
24. Accordingly, the following order is passed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675
ORDER
The Criminal revision petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
AC
