Dismissed

Sri. Nagendra Reddy v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2014CRL.RP/558/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected criminal revision petitions challenging orders naming accused persons after evidence was closed. The court held that the delay justified returning the order of the Magistrate and found no illegality in the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitions rejected. The orders naming respondents as accused in C.C.No.13875/2009 stand set aside and the later order against remaining accused sustained.

Sri. Nagendra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.558 OF 2014

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.478 OF 2013

¶9

IN CRL.R.P.No.558/2014

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Sri. Nagendra Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Son of Nanjunda Reddy, Residing at Sy.No.60/7, Nagendra Reddy Agro Forms, Huskur Main Road, Electronic City, Bangalore – 560 100.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(By Shri. Prabhugoud B Tumbigi, Advocate [absent] )

¶14

AND:

¶15

State of Karnataka by

¶16

Parappana Agrahara Police Station,

¶17

¶18

Represented State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶19

Vinay.M.Jagadish, Aged about 38 years, Son of M.G.Jagadish, Residing at No.369, 8^th Cross, 1^st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

¶20

Amarnag, Son of Chadramohan M.C, Aged about 37 years, Residing at 444, 9^th Cross, 1^st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(By Shri. Aditya Chatterjee, Advocate for M/s. Keystones Partners , Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Shri. K.R. Keshava Murthy, State Public Prosecutor 1 for Respondent no.1)

¶23

¶24

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioner praying to modify/set aside the order dated 6.8.2013 passed by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore c/c Fast Track Court-II in Crl.R.P.No.180/2013 as it is not tenable in law and confirm the order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the IX ACMM., Bangalore in C.C.No.13875/2009.

¶25

¶26

IN CRL.R.P.No.478/2013

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

Sri. Nagendra Reddy, Son of Nanjundareddy, Aged about 49 years, Residing at Sy.No.60/7, Nagendrareddy Agro Forms, Huskur Main Road, Electronic City, Bangalore – 560 100.

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(By Shri. M.R.C.Manohar, Advocate [absent] )

¶31

AND:

¶32

State of Karnataka by Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Represented State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶33

Sunil Mysore, Son of M.G.Nagendra, Aged about 39 years, Residing at #9, 15 Cross, 6^th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078.

¶34

B.S.Adithya, Son of B.K.Somashekar, Aged about 38 years, Residing at C/o. M.G.Nagendra,

¶35

¶36

#1143, 22^nd B.S.K.2^nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 070.

¶37

Amarnag, Son of Chadramohan, Aged major, Residing at #444, 9^th Cross, 1^st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

¶38

Vinay, Son of M.Jagadish, Aged Major, Residing at No.369, 8^th Cross, 1^st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(By Shri. K.R. Keshava Murthy, State Public Prosecutor 1 for Respondent no.1

¶41

Shri. Chethan Annadani Manjunath, Advocate for Respondent No.3

¶42

Shri. Pradeep Nayak, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5)

¶43

¶44

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioner praying to set aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore, in Criminal Revision Petition No.133/2013 dated 7.5.2013 and confirm the order passed by the IX ACMM., Bangalore in C.C.No.13875/2009 dated 25.3.2013.

¶45

¶46

These petitions coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

The counsel for the petitioner remains absent. It is

¶49

noticed that the counsel for the petitioner who is common in both these petitions had remained absent on the earlier occasion

¶50

as well. Hence, heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶51

These petitions are disposed of by this common order,

¶52

having regard to the facts and circumstances.

¶53

The petitioner was the complainant who in his

¶54

complaint had alleged that Accused No.1 along with ten to fifteen other persons had attacked him on his land where he was residing and had caused damage to his vehicle and also caused injuries. The charge-sheet was filed only as against Accused No.1. The matter went to trial and the complainant had tendered his evidence and was cross-examined at length. He did not state the names of any other accused except Accused No.1. However, at a later point of time, he has sought to

¶55

¶56

furnish an additional statement by virtue of which the prosecution contended that four others having been named as Accused Nos.2 and 5, ought to be named as the accused. The Court of the Magistrate promptly named the respondents herein as Accused 2 to 5. It transpires that Accused Nos.4 and 5 had questioned the order of the Magistrate in naming them as the accused. The court below had allowed the petition and setaside the order, which in effect set-aside the order in respect of all the accused 2 to 5. However, by way of abundant caution, since Accused Nos.2 and 3 had not joined the petition, had subsequently filed a petition which was disposed of holding that since the entire order had been set aside earlier, there was no warrant to consider the petitions of Accused Nos.2 and 3. It is these two orders namely, the order passed in the first instance at the instance of Accused Nos.4 and 5 and the subsequent order at the instance of Accused Nos.2 and 3, which are sought to be questioned in these two petitions.

¶57

¶58

From a plain reading of the impugned orders, it is evident that the complainant having named these respondents as the accused, was clearly an after-thought and much after his evidence had been closed and there was no mention about these accused persons at any point of time. They are sought to be impleaded only on the footing that they were closely related to Accused No.1 and were possibly the other assailants and therefore, the court below has taken exception in the Court of the Magistrate having proceeded to name them as the accused at

¶59

the instance of the prosecution and has set-aside the same. There is no illegality committed by the court below and the reasons assigned are acceptable. Accordingly, the present petitions are rejected.

¶60

Sd- JUDGE

¶61

Sri. Nagendra Reddy v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagendra Reddy v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kareem S/O Buden Sab Vs State of Karnataka by R F O

K S Leelavathi Vs B P Umesha

Chikkaidaiah Vs State by Yelahanka

Mr Anjan Vs the State

Sri Sathyanarayana Vs Sri H N Vasanna

M/S. Suri Industries Vs S.M Syed Ataullah