Allowed

Mr. B R Maruthi v. Mr. M D Sriranganatha

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2021CRL.P/2640/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and set aside the Sessions Court order dismissing a revision petition, directing that the complainant be impleaded and the matter reheard.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; first respondent directed to implead petitioner; Sessions Court directed to decide revision petition afresh after hearing all parties.

Mr. B R Maruthi Vs Mr. M D Sriranganatha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2640 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mr. B.R.Maruthi, S/o N.A.Ramakrishna, Aged about 52 years, Residing at No.374, 13^th Main Road, Rajmahal Vilas Extension, Bengaluru-560080.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Siddharth B Muchandi, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Mr. M.D.Sriranganatha, S/o Late M.R.Devaraj, Aged about 58 years, R/at No.46, 60 feet Road, Kurubarahalli, J.C.Nagar, Bengaluru-560086.

¶12

The State of Karnataka By the Police of H.A.L. Police Station, Bengaluru City, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

…Respondents (By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R2; R1 - Served)

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order passed by the Learned XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-20) in Crl.RP.No.25173/2019 dated 11.08.2020.

¶16

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard Sri Siddharth B Muchandi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2State. Respondent No.1 has been served with notice, but there is no representation from his side.

¶19

In this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.08.2020, passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru

¶20

(CCH-20) in Crl.R.P.No.25173/2019.

¶21

:: 3 ::

¶22

The necessary facts are as below:

¶23

The petitioner is the de-facto complainant in Crime No.269/2012 lodged at HAL Police Station. The investigation with respect to this FIR resulted in charge sheet being filed against two accused. The first accused is the son of the second accused. The first respondent herein is the second accused.

¶24

The first respondent made an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking his discharge from the charge sheet. But the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. The first respondent preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Court, challenging the dismissal of his application. The learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order, discharging him of the offence. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner takes me through the charge sheet and submits

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

that the Sessions Court ought not to have reversed the order of the Magistrate in order to discharge the first respondent. He also submits that the petitioner made an application under Section 302(2) of Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate and sought permission to conduct prosecution by taking assistance of a pleader. Said application was allowed. But the first respondent, while preferring a revision petition before the Sessions Court, did not make the petitioner a party therein. Therefore the revision petition was disposed of without the petitioner being heard. Had the petitioner been made a party in the revision petition, it would have been possible for him to make out that the revision petition was not liable to be allowed.

¶28

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had been granted permission under Section 302(2) of Cr.P.C., the first respondent

¶29

:: 5 ::

¶30

ought to have made the petitioner a party in the revision petition that he preferred before the Sessions Court. This has resulted the interest of the petitioner being prejudiced as he has not been heard before passing the impugned order. In this view without expressing anything on merits, I find that the Sessions Court has to dispose of the revision petition afresh after hearing the petitioner also. Therefore the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Petition is allowed.

¶33

Order dated 11.08.2020, passed by the learned XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, (CCH-20) in Crl.R.P.No.25173/2019 is set-aside.

¶34

The first respondent is hereby directed to implead the petitioner as a party in the revision petition.

¶35

:: 6 ::

¶36

The learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide the revision petition afresh after hearing all the parties.

¶37

The parties shall appear before the Sessions Court on 22.12.2021.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Kmv/-

Mr. B R Maruthi v. Mr. M D Sriranganatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. B R Maruthi v. Mr. M D Sriranganatha

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.R. Sudhir Vs K.S. Suresh Raju

Sri K R Kausik Vs State of Karnataka

K Sambasivan Vs the State of Karnataka

S E Shivakumar Vs S M Shivarudrappa

Navaz Beg Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Pattabhiraman Vs State of Karnataka