The High Court dismissed two criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of orders rejecting applications for producing the Station House Diary and recalling the investigating officer. The Court held that recalling the officer and marking documents was not necessary as the State consented to marking said documents.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1618/2021 C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.673/2020
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1618/2021:
BETWEEN:
3 . SMT. PRAMILA W/O GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.525, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS ANNAPURNESHWARI GENERAL STORES VIRATNAGAR MAIN ROAD
2
BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU-68.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VISHNUMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THALAGHATTAPURA P.S REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNAGAKA BENGALURU-560001.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.PC VIDE DATED 08.02.2021 PASSED IN S.C.NO.167/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A AND 306 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.673/2020:
BETWEEN:
2 . SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI W/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT 524, 4TH CROSS VIRATNAGAR MAIN ROAD BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-68
3
3 . SMT. PRAMILA W/O GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.525, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS ANNAPURNESHWARI GENERAL STORES VIRATNAGAR MAIN ROAD BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU-68.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VISHNUMURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THALAGHATTAPURA P.S REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNAGAKA BENGALURU-560001.
… RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 91 OF CR.PC VIDE DATED 16.12.2019 PASSED IN S.C.NO.167/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A AND 306 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Crl.P.No.673/2020 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying this Court to quash the order of rejecting the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16.12.2019 passed in S.C.No.167/2015 pending on the file of VIII Additional
4
District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and to direct the learned Sessions Judge to secure the Station House Diary dated 03.03.2014.
5
application came to be dismissed. Subsequently, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is filed recalling the Investigating Officer P.W.14 for marking D. Petition No.213/2014 and also the letter dated 04.03.2014 addressed to the Tahasildar for recording the statement of the deceased Smt.Prathibha and the said application is also dismissed. Hence, the Crl.P.No.1618/2021 is filed before the Court.
6
of P.W.14 for marking the D. Petition and also the letter addressed to the Tahasildar by the I.O. is also dismissed.
submit that earlier the application was filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. summoning for production of the Station House Diary. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BALAKRAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
reported in (2017) 7 SCC 668 , the Station House Diary has to be examined by the Court and the same cannot be furnished to the accused. Learned counsel also would submit that Station House Diary is also not available and the endorsement has also been issued. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the Sessions Judge in rejecting the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. cannot be set aside.
7
the cross-examination has been made in the year 2018 and also the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and the evidence has been led by the accused, at this juncture, the application is filed. The Public Prosecutor submits that he has no objection to mark the D. Petition and also the letter addressed to Tahasildar for recording the statement vide letter dated 04.03.2014.
8
also in the cross-examination. The statement recorded by the Tahasildar has already been marked before the Trial Court.
With these observations, both the petitions are disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
PYR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash orders rejecting applications under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C. regarding the production of the Station House Diary and recall of an investigating officer.
Whether the discharge of certain documents and records before the Trial Court can substitute for the recall of the investigating officer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
BALAKRAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERSReferred¶46
BALAKRAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS (2017) 7 SCC 668 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
HANUMANTHA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY
SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI W/O KRISHNA REDDY
SMT. PRAMILA W/O GOPALA REDDY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court