O Thippesh vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 10392 Kant

Karnataka High Court

O Thippesh vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2025

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:47873
                                                           CRL.A No. 600 of 2014


                      HC-KAR



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                              BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2014


                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    O THIPPESH
                            S/O OBAIAH,
                            AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                            R/A SJM LAYOUT,
                            BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE,
                            CHITRADURGA TALUK &
                            DISTRICT - 577501.

                      2.    P. SHIVASHANKAR
                            S/O PUTTANAIK
                            AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                            R/A SJM LAYOUT,
                            BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE,
                            CHITRADURGA TALUK &
                            DISTRICT - 577501.
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN
N                     3.    B.C. HARISH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
                            S/O B. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY,
KARNATAKA
                            AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                            R/A BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE,
                            CHITRADURGA TALUK &
                            DISTRICT - 577501.

                      4.    N. KALLESH
                            S/O NAGENDRAPPA,
                            AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                            R/A BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE,
                            CHITRADURGA TALUK &
                            DISTRICT - 577501.
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:47873
                                     CRL.A No. 600 of 2014


HC-KAR



5.   DURGESH PUJAR.M
     S/O MARIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     R/A BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE,
     CHITRADURGA TALUK &
     DISTRICT - 577501.
                                             ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. UMESH P.B., ADV. FOR
 SRI. R. B. DESHPANDE, ADV.)
AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY BHARAMASAGARA
     POLICE STATION
     CHITRADURGA TALUK &
     DISTRICT - 577501.

2.   G.S.ASHOK
     S/O G.T.SIDDAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
     R/A BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE,
     CHITRADURGA TALUK &
     DISTRICT - 577501.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1,
 SRI. VINAYAKA S. KOTI, ADV. FOR
 SRI. S.S. KOTI, ADV. FOR R2.)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.341 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:11/13.3.14 PASSED
BY THE ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE (SC/ST (PA)
ACT), CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C.NO.28/11 (SC/ST) IN SO FAR
AS IT RELATES TO ISSUING DIRECTION TO THE CAO TO
LODGE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THE
CONCERNED JURISDICTIONAL MAGISTRATE FOR THE OFFENCE
OF PERJURY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                   -3-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:47873
                                             CRL.A No. 600 of 2014


HC-KAR



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                        ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the

order dated 11.03.2014 passed in Special Case

No.28/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chitradurga (for short 'the trial Court') insofar as it relates

to issuing direction to the CAO to lodge a complaint

against the appellants who are PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6 and

PW7 for the offence of perjury.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the DYSP,

Chitradurga Sub-Division, Chitradurga submitted the

charge sheet against the accused for the offence under

sections 323, 324, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of

SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. In this case, PW1 to PW14 have

adduced their evidence as PW1 to PW14. After trial, the

trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission

of offence under sections 323, 324, 506 of IPC and Section

NC: 2025:KHC:47873

HC-KAR

3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and passed a sentence

that, the accused shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for

1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under

Section 323 of IPC and further the accused shall undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years with fine of

Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and

further the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the

offence under Section 506 of IPC and the accused shall

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years

with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section

3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and all the substantive

sentences shall run concurrently.

4. Further, the trial Court has passed the following

order:

"C.A.O., is directed to lodge complaint before concerned Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate as against PWs.1,2,3,6 and 7 for the offences of perjury as discussed in the judgment of conviction and order on sentence by furnishing certified copy of

NC: 2025:KHC:47873

HC-KAR

depositions along with comlaint and Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by this court to the concerned court."

5. Being aggrieved by the direction issued to the CAO to

lodge a complaint against PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7

for the offence of perjury, appellants have preferred this

appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants

would submit that, the learned Sessions Judge has failed

to understand that mere contradiction in two statements

does not attract the offence of perjury automatically,

unless the same is verified by conducting preliminary

enquiry. In the instant case, because of the differences in

the statement made by appellants, at different points of

the time, the learned Sessions Judge has termed it as an

Offence of perjury, which is not proper and correct. There

is no law warranting the learned Sessions Judge to believe

the version deposed by appellants in their examination-in-

chief, unless the same is verified by other circumstantial

NC: 2025:KHC:47873

HC-KAR

evidence such as the facts elicited in the cross-

examination, etc. Only because appellants have stated

true facts in their cross-examination, since it is

contradictory to the statements made in the examination-

in-chief, cannot be termed as an offence of perjury.

Further he would submit that today PW1 has compromised

with the Accused/appellant in Crl.A.No.270/2014. This

Court has allowed the compromise petition filed by both

victim and the accused under Section 320 r/w 482 of IPC

relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of RAMAWATAR vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA

PRADESH passed in Criminal Appeal No.1393/2011 dated

25.10.2021. On all these grounds, it is sought for allowing

this appeal.

7. Before appreciation of the materials on record, it is

necessary to mention here as to the provision of Section

340 of Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973. Same reads as under:

NC: 2025:KHC:47873

HC-KAR

"S.340 : Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195:

1. When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause

(b) of Sub-Section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary;-

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

NC: 2025:KHC:47873

HC-KAR

2. The power conferred on a Court by Sub-Section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under Sub- Section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-Section (4) of section 195.

3. A complaint made under this section shall be signed;

(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.

4. In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195."

8. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the

trial Court has not complied the mandatory procedure as

required under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Before passing the impugned order, the trial Court has not

NC: 2025:KHC:47873

HC-KAR

conducted any preliminary enquiry or has not directed the

CAO to conduct preliminary enquiry to initiate the

proceedings against these appellants for the offence of

perjury. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order

passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable

under law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 11.03.2014 passed in Special

Case No.28/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Chitradurga insofar as it relates to issuing direction

the CAO to lodge a complaint against the appellants who

are PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7 for the offence of

perjury, is set aside.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

DHA