Dismissed

Smt. Janaki v. State by

Karnataka HC30 Sept 2021CRL.RP/218/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an interim order granting custody of seized gold ornaments to the complainant. The court held that the order was discretionary and preliminary, requiring no hearing to determine ownership at this stage. Consequently, no jurisdictional error was found warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed, pending interim application also dismissed.

Smt. Janaki Vs State by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.218 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Smt.Janaki, D/o. Late Doddananjappa, Aged about 42 years, R/a No.422, 2^nd Main, 4^th Cross, Near SHK Choultry, Pattegarapalya, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru-560 056.

¶8

Sri N.G.Ramesh, S/o Late N.L.Ganganna, Aged about 34 years, R/at No.28, 1^st Cross, 4^th Main, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore. .. Petitioners

¶9

( By Sri T.M.Venkata Reddy, Advocate )

¶10

AND:

¶11

State by Nandhini Layout Police, Represented by its Public Prosecutor.

¶12

Sri M.Muniyappa, S/o Late Munishamappa, Aged about 64 years, R/a No.202, 4^th Stage,

¶13

Crl.RP.No.218/2019

¶14

¶15

Srinivasnagar, Nandhini Layout, Bengaluru-560 096.

¶16

Sri T.R.Athmananda, S/o. Ramegowda, Aged about 41 years, R/a No.11, Sri Kalabyraveshwara Nilaya, 8^th Cross, Sanjeevininagar, Moodalapalya, Bengaluru-560 072. .. Respondents

¶17

( By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP, for R-1, Sri Pattabhi Raman C., Advocate for R-2, and R-3 – served)

¶18

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 03.03.2017, in Crime No.35/2017 (Spl.C.C.No.280/2017), passed by the 2^nd Addl.District & Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH-71), on IA under Section 451 and 457 of Criminal Procedure Code and directing the respondent No.1 for recovering the jewellaries from respondent No.2 under PF.No.25/2017 and PF.No.26/2017, and kept the same in safe custody before the trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.280/2017 (Crime No.35/2017) (CCH: 71), and after disposal of case, the jewellaries will be released in favour of the petitioners and to call for the entire records and to grant such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case along with by awarding the costs of the litigation, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶19

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

Crl.RP.No.218/2019

ORDER

The present revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Cr.P.C.), challenging the order dated 03.03.2017, passed on IA filed under Section 451 and Section 457 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.35/2017 (Spl.C.C.No.280/2017), on the file of learned II Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as trial Court’).

¶24

The brief facts of the case are as under :

¶25

The complainant/respondent No.2 M.Muniyappa had filed a

¶26

complaint against T.R.Athmananda, Janaki, Aishwarya and Ramesh (accused Nos.1 to 4), on 01.02.2017, by contending that the accused are well acquainted with him and there was an agreement of sale for purchase of two sites. In pursuance of the agreement of sale, the Sale Deeds have taken place in respect of two sites. After registration of one site, there was some misunderstanding between the parties and thus, a complaint came to be filed on 01.02.2017 by the 2^nd respondent-M.Muniyappa against T.R.Athmananda and others alleging the offences committed under the provisions of

¶27

Crl.RP.No.218/2019

¶28

¶29

Sections 448, 504, 506, 420 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1) (x) and (xi) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶30

Thereafterwards, the police registered a case in Crime No.35/2017 and the case was investigated and charge sheet was also filed. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency seized certain gold ornaments from the Pawn Broker at the instance of Smt.Janaki and Ramesh, who are accused Nos.2 and 4 (revision petitioners herein).

¶31

The complainant – M.Muniyappa filed an application under Section 451 and Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, seeking for the interim custody of the seized gold ornaments. Without notice to accused Nos.2 and 4 i.e., the present petitioners, the said application came to be allowed by the order dated 03.03.2017. While allowing the said application, the learned Special Judge has discussed in detail about the scope of the interim application and has answered that prima facie materials viz., memo with three copies of the bills produced indicate that the claimant i.e., M.Muniyappa is entitled for the interim custody of the seized

¶32

Crl.RP.No.218/2019 5

¶33

gold ornaments by executing necessary Indemnity Bond and also with the condition that the applicant/2^nd respondent - M.Muniyappa shall not alienate the property to anybody in any manner subject to the disposal of the matter on merits and also to maintain the identity of the articles and not to change the identity of the seized articles.

¶34

Thereafterwards, the Indemnity Bond came to be executed by M.Muniyappa and seized gold ornaments are given to the interim custody of the said M.Muniyappa. Sri C.Pattabhi Raman, learned counsel representing the complainant/2^nd respondentSri M.Muniyappa, submits that the applicant would maintain the identity of the seized gold ornaments in a proper manner and Indemnity Bond executed by the applicant is in force and the prayer made by the accused cannot be countenanced in law.

¶35

Sri T.M.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners however contended that the petitioners are the owners of the seized gold ornaments and therefore, without hearing the revision petitioners, passing of the order by the Special Judge

¶36

Crl.RP.No.218/2019

¶37

¶38

on 03.03.2017 has affected their rights and therefore, sought for interference of this Court by setting aside the impugned order.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both side.

¶40

It is found from the records that the gold ornaments were seized from the Pawn Broker at the behest of the voluntary statement said to have been made by accused Nos.2 and 4 (revision petitioners).

¶41

The trial Court considering the scope of Section 451 and Section 457 of Cr.P.C., released the seized gold ornaments in favour of the 2^nd respondent M.Muniyappa by using its discretion. The impugned order is a well reasoned order and prima facie materials produced before the trial Court have been properly appreciated by the trial Court for the purpose of ordering the interim release/custody of the seized gold ornaments.

¶42

The impugned order is purely a discretionary order and it is interim in the nature and the said order is always subject to the final disposal of the case on merits. This is not the stage for the trial Court or for this Court to find out the ownership of the seized articles. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of

¶43

Crl.RP.No.218/2019

¶44

¶45

the matter, this Court is required to find out whether any jurisdictional error has occurred in passing of the impugned order or not.

¶46

Sri T.M.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that before passing the order on the application filed under Section 451 and Section 457 of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.2 and 4 (revision petitioners) must have been heard in the matter.

¶47

Since the seized articles are from the Pawn Broker and may be based on the voluntary statement said to have been given by accused Nos.2 and 4, this Court does not find any error in not affording any opportunity to the accused Nos.2 and 4 to have their say in the matter in giving the interim custody of the seized articles in favour of the complainant.

¶48

Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error so as to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, following order is made :

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The Revision Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the

¶51

dismissal of the Revision Petition would not come in the way of the

¶52

Crl.RP.No.218/2019 8

¶53

revision petitioners in establishing their right of ownership over the seized articles, and if so, the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the case shall take into consideration all the contentions that would be urged by the revision petitioners to establish their ownership over the seized property.

¶54

In view of the dismissal of the Revision Petition, the pending IA.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

bk/

Smt. Janaki v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Janaki v. State by

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

Ajit S/O Nanarao @ Nanaso Chogale Vs the State of Karnataka

Erannagouda S/O Ramachandrayya Kalal Vs State of Karnataka

Ashma Khan Vs State of Karnataka

A Muniraju Vs State by Cbi/Acb

Smt Pushpa Prabhakar Vs Shriram Chits Karnataka Ltd.

Puttappa K Vs Rajashekar