Allowed

Sri R Sekar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Nov 2016CRL.P/3073/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a dismissal of a private complaint for non-prosecution. Due to a communication gap causing the complainant's absence, the court restored the file to prevent a miscarriage of justice, ordering the complainant to appear on a specified date.

What did the court decide?

The complaint PCR No.142/2010 is restored to the file of the court below. The complainant shall appear without notice on 13.12.2016.

Sri R Sekar Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3073 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. R. Sekar, Aged about 62 years, Son of Rangaswamy, Resident of #10, Hoodi Apartments, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560 080.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri Pradeep K. Gaonkar, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Attached to the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

¶15

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader)

¶16

¶17

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint for non prosecution passed on 6.2.2016 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davanagere in PCR No.142/2010.

¶18

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner was the complainant before the court

¶22

below alleging an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the respondent – accused. It was a private complaint and the appellant’s sworn statement was recorded by the court below and the statements of his witnesses were also recorded. Thereafter, the matter was set down for the court to take cognizance and to issue summons, if the court was satisfied of the complainant’s case. However, in the interregnum, it transpires that the matter stood transferred to yet another court. It appears that there was a communication

¶23

¶24

gap in the transfer of the case not having been noticed by the counsel appearing for the complainant and the complainant also remaining blissfully unaware of the same. It transpires that the court to which the complaint had been transferred had repeatedly adjourned the matter in the absence of the complainant or his counsel and ultimately, has dismissed the complaint.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that the sequence of events indicate that there was little for the complainant or his counsel to supplement, since the proceedings stood at a stage where it was for the court to take cognizance and even if the complainant had remained continuously absent, there was no impediment for the court below to have proceeded to the next stage and therefore is before this court.

¶26

The statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be readily accepted. The counsel for the complainant is required to assist the court to bring to its attention the stage at which the proceedings stood and it cannot

¶27

¶28

all be left to the court below to deduce, and the complainant cannot blissfully stay away from court and expect the court to study the file for itself and to deal with the matter. It is for this reason that the court below had adjourned the case from time to time and it is noticed that the court has specifically held that the court wanted the complainant’s audience and it required the complainant to appear before it and therefore, notice had been issued to the complainant repeatedly. It is thereafter that the case has been dismissed as there was no response from the complainant. In this background, there is no fault to be found with the manner in which the proceedings have gone on and the court below ultimately having dismissed the complaint.

¶29

However, in the interest of justice, since the complainant has initially displayed his diligence in having appeared before the court and having the sworn statement recorded and evidence also having been recorded, the lapse in not having appeared before the court below could be put down to a lack of communication between the counsel and the

¶30

¶31

complainant and the complaint being dismissed would result in a miscarriage of justice, as the complainant ultimately suffers in not having been able to prosecute the accused for a serious offence.

¶32

Therefore, the petition is allowed, not on the reasons that have been urged placing the fault at the door of the court below, but for the reason that there may be a miscarriage of justice if the complaint is not restored to file. Accordingly, the complaint PCR No.142/2010 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Davangere is restored to file and it is made clear that the complainant shall appear before the court below without any further notice, on 13.12.2016.

¶33

Sd/- JUDGE

¶34

Sri R Sekar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Sekar v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt. Usha Ramamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Parashuramappa

Dr.N.R.Rao Vs Smt.Ranjeetha Shenoy

Mohammed Vs Stateof Karnataka

U. Varadaraya Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Uday Kumar Kaje