D S Kalmat vs D H Kambi Editor
2026 Latest Caselaw 3244 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3244 Kant
Judgement Date : 15 April, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

D S Kalmat vs D H Kambi Editor on 15 April, 2026

                                                 -1-
                                                               NC: 2026:KHC-K:3254
                                                          CRL.P No. 201092 of 2025


                      HC-KAR



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                               BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201092 OF 2025
                                      (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      D S KALMAT
                      S/O SIDDAIAH KALMAT
                      AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
                      R/O SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR
                                                                     ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. R. S. LAGALI., ADVOCATE)
                      AND:

                      D H KAMBI
                      S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
                      AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: JOUSNALISM
                      R/O SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR
Digitally signed by   TQ: SINDHANUR-584101.
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI                                                    ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH        (RESPONDENT - SERVED)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                           THIS PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C (OLD)
                      U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
                      PETITION AND THEREBY QUASH THE ORDER DT. 25.06.2024
                      PASSED IN CRIMINAL REV. PETITION NO.5002/2024 BY THE III
                      ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR SITTING AT
                      SINDHANUR IN DISMISSING THE REVISION FILED BY THE
                      PETITIONER FOR NOT TAKING STEPS, THEREBY CONFIRMING
                      THE ORDER DT.07.10.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
                      AND JMFC COURT SINDHANUR IN CC.NO.246/2015 (ARISING
                      OUT OF PC NO.71/2007) INITIATED FOR THE OFFENCES
                      PUNISHABLE U/S 499, 500, 501, 502 OF IPC AGAINST THE
                      RESPONDENT.
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-K:3254
                                   CRL.P No. 201092 of 2025


HC-KAR



    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                      ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section

528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking

following relief:

"Wherefore, on looking into all the above mention grounds amongst others, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this criminal petition and thereby quash the Order Dt. 25.06.2024 passed in Criminal Rev. Petition No.5002/2024 by the Hon'ble III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Raichur sitting at Sindhanur in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner for not taking steps, thereby confirming the Order Dt.07.10.2023 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court Sindhanur in C.C. No. 246/2015 (arising out of PC. No.71/2007) initiated for the offences punishable U/s 499, 500, 501, 502 of IPC against the respondent, in the interest of justice"

2. Despite service of notice, respondent remained

absent and un-represented.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3254

HC-KAR

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

would submit that the impugned orders passed by both

the courts demonstrate the complete lack of application of

mind by the both the courts & the same has resulted in

miscarriage of justice. The impugned orders passed by

both the courts are against the facts and materials placed

on record by the petitioner and the impugned orders are in

clear violation of the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence

& same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He further

submits that the learned magistrate ought to have

provided another opportunity to the petitioner to establish

his case. No doubt time had been provided to the

petitioner by the learned magistrate considering the

totality of circumstances and facts of the case, the learned

magistrate ought to have given a fair opportunity to

petitioner to establish his case against the respondent. It

is submitted that likewise the learned Sessions Judge was

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3254

HC-KAR

also pleased to dismiss the case for not taking steps by

the petitioner within 02 dates of the proceedings. It is

submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have

given opportunity to the petitioner to takes steps against

the respondent. The learned sessions judge has dealt with

the matter in hurried manner which is prejudicial to the

interest of petitioner. Further, submits that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has time and again deprecated the practice

of dismissing the appeals and revisions for non-

prosecution at the threshold. It is submitted that the in the

present case the revisional Court has dismissed the

revision for not taking steps by the petitioner. It is

submitted that the revisional Court ought to have provided

an opportunity to petitioner to take steps. On this count

alone the impugned order deserves to be interfered. On all

these grounds sought for allowing of the petition.

4. I have examined the materials placed before

this Court.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3254

HC-KAR

5. The trial Court has taken cognizance against the

accused as per order dated 22.04.2015 for the commission

of offence under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 IPC. The

alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections

500, 501 and 502 of IPC are punishable with simple

imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or

fine or with both. All these offences are summons cases.

As defined under Section 2(w) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, there is no need to record evidence

before charge in summons case. However, the trial Court

has posted the case for evidence before charge without

assigning any proper reasons and also recorded the

evidence of PWs.1 and 2 which is not required.

Unfortunately, the learned counsel appearing on the

accused has not pointed out that the evidence before

charge is not required in this case. Both the Courts have

committed an error in pointing out that the evidence

before charge is not required in summons cases. The

entire procedure adopted by the trial Court is not

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3254

HC-KAR

sustainable under law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

(a) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(b) The impugned order dated 07.10.2023 passed in C.C.No.246/2015 (arising out of P.C.No.71/2007) by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sindhanur, which is confirmed in Criminal Revision Petition No.5002/2024 by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, sitting at Sindhanur, dated 25.06.2024 are set aside.