Single Judge, Karnataka HC dismissed a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order of cognizance and case proceedings filed under sections relating to SC/ST atrocities and offences involving criminal force.
驳回 the revision petition and rejected the connected I.A.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRL.R.P.No.100178/2016
BETWEEN
..... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PUTTAPPA SHAMBANA HEBBAL, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND
: 2 :
DHARWAD.
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R-1 R-2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE PASSED IN SPECIAL SC/ST NO. 7 OF 2014 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(i)(x) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989, BY THE DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 05.02.2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 21.12.2013 AND CHARGE SHEET DATED 04.02.2014 IN ADUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 171 OF 2013.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed under section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order of cognizance passed in Special SC/ST No.7/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST PA Act, 1989, by the District And Special Judge, Haveri, dated 05.02.2014 and consequently quash the FIR and complaint dated 21.12.2013 and charge sheet dated 04.02.2014 in Adur Police Station Crime No.171/2013.
: 3 :
: 4 :
CW-5 by holding his shirt collar. PW-5 was also hit, pushed and pulled by the accused and also complainant was hit with a chappal that was available in front of the house. It is in this connection, the complaint came to be filed and the cognizance is taken.
The word ‘cognizance’ is nowhere defined in the procedural code. More particularly, after the judgment by their Lordships in Arushi’s murder case, the scope of cognizance has become vide. It is not necessary for the complainant to name all the accused persons. On the other hand, the Court, on the basis of satisfaction of the material as per the Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and even if the name of the accused does not find place in the final report, it can be proceeded. In the circumstances, except filing the petition, the first petitioner prosecuting the
: 5 :
petition in person has not chosen to complete his part of the duties. Regard being had to the fact that the petitioners also urge that committal was necessary for a Court triable under a Special Court by the Special Judge. No merits in the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
SD JUDGE
Naa
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition invoking Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of cognizance should be allowed.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Puttappa Shambana Hebbal
Veeranna S/o. Soman
Somanagouda S/o. Shanmukana
Sharannaga S/o. Shanmukana
State of Karnataka
Basavaraj Duragapa Doddamani
N.K. Sudhindrarao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
