[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Suresh S/O. Basvanneppa Navalgi vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:790
CRL.P No. 100193 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100193 OF 2024
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI SURESH S/O. BASAVANNEPPA NAVALGI
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
R/O. QUARTERS NO.C-19,
K.P.T.C.L. COLONY, NEHRU NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BELAGAVI NORTH TRAFFIC
POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI,
R/BY IT'S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
2. MOHAMMED SALMAN PATEL,
S/O SALEEM PATEL,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR,
R/O. JNMC COLLEGE, BELAGAVI-590001,
NOW R/O. FLAT NO.304, 3RD FLOOR,
SIMLA HOUSE, 51-B NAPEANSEA ROAD,
MALBAR HILL, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA-400036.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. Z.M.HATTARKI AND SRI A.M.MULLA, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:790
CRL.P No. 100193 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 IN C.C.NO.
429/2016 FOR OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 184, 187 AND 134(B) OF IMV ACT,
1988 AND U/SEC. 338, 279 304(A) OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF
JMFC II, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION
MADE BY THE PETITIONER U/SEC. 302 OF CR.P.C. AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Vyas Desai, learned counsel for petitioner,
Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and Sri Z.M.Hattarki, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. In the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
following prayer is made.
"To quash the order dated 17.10.2023 in
C.C.No.429/2016 for offences p/u/sec. 184, 187 and
134(B) of IMV Act, 1988 and u/sec. 338, 279 304(A) of
IPC pending on the file of JMFC II, Belagavi at Belagavi in
rejecting the application made by the petitioner u/sec.
302 of Cr.P.C. and allow the application in the interest of
justice."
3. Defacto complainant is the petitioner. He is
apprehending that the case is being delayed on account of the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:790
HC-KAR
fact that the case in C.C.No.429/2016 is not properly conducted
as there was an in charge Assistant Public Prosecutor and Court
is not serious in disposing of the matter.
4. Therefore, sought for permission to engage a counsel
for himself under Section 302 Cr.P.C. so as to conduct the
prosecution by a private counsel on behalf of the defacto
complainant.
5. On behalf of the petitioner, judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of case Dhariwal Industries Limited
vs. Kishore Wadhwani and others reported in (2016) 10
SCC 378 is relied upon especially inviting the attention of this
Court to Para 12 of the said judgment wherein it is held as
under:
"12. In J.K. International [J.K. International v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2001) 3 SCC 462 : 2001 SCC (Cri)
547] , a three-Judge Bench was adverting in detail to
Section 302 CrPC. In that context, it has been opined that
(SCC pp. 466-67, para 12) the private person who is
permitted to conduct prosecution in the Magistrate's Court
can engage a counsel to do the needful in the court in his
behalf. If a private person is aggrieved by the offence
committed against him or against any one in whom he is
interested he can approach the Magistrate and seek
permission to conduct the prosecution by himself. This
Court further proceeded to state that it is open to the court
to consider his request and if the court thinks that the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:790
HC-KAR
cause of justice would be served better by granting such
permission the court would generally grant such
permission. Clarifying further, it has been held that the said
wider amplitude is limited to the Magistrate's Court, as the
right of such private individual to participate in the conduct
of prosecution in the Sessions Court is very much restricted
and is made subject to the control of the Public
Prosecutor."
6. The application filed by the petitioner and Section
302 Cr.P.C. came to be rejected by the trial Court and that order
is assailed in the present petition.
7. Since a regular Assistant Public Prosecutor is now
posted to the Court and case is not proceeded on account of the
order of stay obtained by the petitioner in this petition, directing
the trial Court to dispose of the matter in a time bound manner
with further direction for all the concerned to cooperate for the
early disposal would meet the ends of justice in the case on
hand.
8. Accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER
i. Petition stands disposed of.
ii. Complainant and all other witnesses are to be
secured and trial to be expedited as the case is
NC: 2026:KHC-D:790
HC-KAR
of the year 2016 that too for the offence
punishable under Section 279 and 304A and
other alleged offences under the Indian Motor
Vehicles Act.
iii. The trial Court shall dispose of the case on or
before 30.04.2026 positively.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
CLK
LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 26
