Allowed

Lokesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2020CRL.RP/247/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition challenging an impugned non-speaking order that rejected a discharge application. The Court held the order invalid for not considering facts and remanded the matter to the trial judge.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; matter remanded to the trial Judge to consider the discharge application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. afresh within 30 days.

Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.247/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Lokesh, S/o. Gende Gowda, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Lorry Cleaner, Keelghatta Village, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk – 571 428.

¶9

Yogesh, S/o. Papanna, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, Chikka Ankana Halli, Athgur Hobli, Maddur Taluk – 571 428. …Petitioners

¶10

(By Smt. Archana Murthy P., Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka, Through Nagamangala Rural Police Station, Nagamangala Circle, Mandya. Rep. by S.P.P, High Court, Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Smt. B.G. Namitha Mahesh, HCGP)

¶13

¶14

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to setting aside the order of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya dated 16.01.2020 on I.A in Spl. Case No.215/2017 and consequently discharge the petitioners from the offences p/u/s 353, 307, 427 and 379 of IPC and 3, 42, 44 of KMMC Rule under Sections 4(1A), 21(1-5) of MMDR Act.

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court through video conference made the following:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent.

¶18

Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by

¶19

the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶20

The impugned order on the face of it is not a speaking order. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed an cryptic order in violation of the basic

¶21

¶22

requirements of criminal jurisprudence. The reason assigned by the Sessions Court, reads as under:

¶23

“7. Perused the records. On perusal of the order sheet when the case is posted for hear before charge accused nos.1 and 6 reported dead and death certificate is not produced by the prosecution. The present application is filed by the Advocate for the accused on the grounds that the prosecution papers do not show that the ingredients of Sec.307 of IPC is attracted and prays for discharge. The prosecution case is that all the accused illegally transporting the sand from Shimsha riverbank at Maddur without valid license and obstructed the complainant to discharge their duties and tried to run over the lorry on the complainant. The Jeep of the complainant got damaged to its left side.”

¶24

Undisputedly, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 353, 307, 427 and 379 of IPC and 3, 42, 44 of KMMC Rule under Sections 4(1A), 21(1-5) of MMDR Act.

¶25

Having regard to the grounds urged in the petition, the Sessions Court ought to have considered

¶26

¶27

whether the allegations made in the charge sheet and the material produced there with are sufficient to proceed against the petitioners for the above offences. In the absence of any discussion on the said issue, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶28

As a result, petition is allowed . Matter is remanded to the trial Judge to consider the discharge application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C. afresh in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Lokesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh 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

K. v. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

K. v. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

K. v. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

Smt. Anjana a Shanthaveer Vs Sri. Babu Rao Chunchansur

Dayanand Vs State of Karnataka

Premchand Jain @ Prem Vs State of Karnataka