Disposed

Girish S/O Shivarayappa Shetasanadi v. Basavantappa S/O Adiveppa Daddikoppa

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022CRL.RP/100281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Dharwad held that the petitioner failed to exhaust local remedies by approaching the Sessions Court before filing a criminal revision. The revision petition regarding denial of discharge is not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition disposed off as not maintainable; liberty granted to approach Sessions Court.

Girish S/O Shivarayappa Shetasanadi Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No.100281/2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100281/2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

GIRISH S/O SHIVARAYAPPA SHETASANADI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: GRAM SAHAYAKA, R/O: HIREANAJI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI – 581 106.

¶11

BUDANASAB N. KHAWAS AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, R/O: SUDAMBI VILLAGE, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI – 581 106.

¶12

PRABHAKAR M. DODDAMANI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: REVENUE INSPECTOR, R/O: KAGINELE VILLAGE, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI – 581 106.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

BASAVANTAPPA S/O ADIVEPPA DADDIKOPPA AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOREANAJI, TQ: BYADGI – 581 106, DIST: HAVERI – 581 106.

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, KAGINELE POLICE STATION, R/BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD – 580 007.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R2)

¶20

¶21

CRL.RP No.100281/2022

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED under section 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, IN CC NO.194/2017 ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED/PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 239 OF CR.P.C. AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3/PETITIONERS IN CC NO.194/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BYADGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 166, 167, 408, 417, 418, 465, 468, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶23

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 03.11.2022, THIS DAY, THE 6COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Criminal Revision Petition is arising out of the

¶26

order of denial of discharge dated 26.07.2022. The accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the case. The Trial Court after appreciating the material available on record prima-facie opined that there are materials to proceed against the accused. Therefore, it rejected the application filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶27

2. Brief facts of the case are that a private complaint has been filed by the complainant stating that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed an offence under Sections 166, 167, 408, 417, 418, 419, 465, 468, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Kaginele police conducted investigation

¶28

¶29

CRL.RP No.100281/2022

¶30

and submitted the charge sheet. It is alleged that, accused No.1 in connivance with accused Nos.2 and 3 have created forged documents and obtained a job at taluk office, Bydagi as Village Assistant. Accused No.2 was working as Village Accountant from July 2012 to January 2015. Accused No.3 was working as a Revenue Inspector of Kaginele circle.

¶31

3. The Tahsildar of Byadagi invited application for the Village Assistant on 05.01.2015. However, accused Nos.2 and 3 have not disclosed the said notification either in the gram panchayat office or in the village accountant office for its exhibition to the public. Being aggrieved by the said act of the accused Nos.1 to 3, complainant has lodged a private complaint before the police.

¶32

4. The accused Nos.2 to 3 have assisted accused No.1 in creating such documents and indirectly supported accused No.1 to be appointed as Village Assistant. It is also mentioned in the complaint that accused No.2 to 3 have seen that only one application to be placed before the Tahasildar Byadgi and ensured that the accused No.1

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No.100281/2022

¶35

be appointed as Village Assistant. Thereby they have committed an offence under Section as stated (supra).

¶36

5. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet for the above said offences against all the three accused.

¶37

6. Heard Sri Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for respondent No.2.

¶38

7. Sri Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court rejected the application in not considering the entire facts and materials available on record, which is liable to be set aside.

¶39

8. Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that the charge is framed in this case on 29.06.2019 and therefore,

¶40

the prayer to set aside the order of rejecting the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. would not arise.

¶41

9. It appears from the record that the alleged offences are exclusively triable by Civil Judge and JMFC. If

¶42

¶43

CRL.RP No.100281/2022

¶44

any order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC on discharge application, the aggrieved party shall approach the Sessions Court, and seeking remedy to set aside the order passed by the Magistrate. In this case, the petitioner approached this Court without exhausting the remedy available before the Sessions Court by way of filing criminal revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the criminal revision petition stands disposed off as not maintainable.

¶45

10. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Sessions Court by filing necessary petition in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

SSP/Vmb

Girish S/O Shivarayappa Shetasanadi v. Basavantappa S/O Adiveppa Daddikoppa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish S/O Shivarayappa Shetasanadi v. Basavantappa S/O Adiveppa Daddikoppa

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

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagappa Yallapa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Durgappa Vs the State by Psi

Manjula W/O. Kolibasappa Vs Kolibasappa @ Kolidoddabasappa

Smt. Ujwala W/O Kashinath Pednekar Vs Mohandas Vittaldas Vernekar by His Lrs Vinaya