Dismissed

Smt. Shanthamma v. State by

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1220/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Criminal Revision Petition filed against an order assigning the petitioners during charge framing. The Court held that dismissal of Section 227 application was correct as relation prejudice is not grounds at this stage. No infirmity found in Trial Court order.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; Interim Application for stay disposed of.

Smt. Shanthamma Vs State by — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1220/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY 45 YEARS R/OF KAVALU HOSAHALLI KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TLAUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 562106

¶8

2 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY 65 YEARS R/OF KAVALU HOSAHALLI KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TLAUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 562106

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(By SRI MANJUNATHA H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT 562106 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560 001.

¶13

.. RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 IN S.C.NO.5066/2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE ON THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER U/S 227 OF CPRC, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONERS U/S 227 OF CPRC ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE.

¶17

THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of admission. They have filed this revision petition under section 397 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2021 passed in S.C.No.5066/2017 on the application made by them under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners

¶21

Sri.Manjunatha H., submits that two FIRs have been registered against the petitioners and that except oral statements of the witnesses, there are no other materials before this Court for filing the charge sheet.

¶22

¶23

The statements of the witnesses and other documents do not reveal any offence being committed by the petitioners. The Trial Court ought to have discharged them and instead the application has been wrongly dismissed.

¶24

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the charge sheet. The incident alleged is that on 2.3.2017 at about 3.00 p.m. when CWs-1, 2, 3 and 4 were getting their land in Sy.No.29/1 of Kavalu Hosahalli, Kasaba Hobli, surveyed, the petitioners and other accused came to that place and caused obstruction to the survey work and then assaulted CWs-2 and 3. An FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.34/2017 and the investigation led to filing of charge sheet for the offence under Sections 447, 504, 324, 354, 323, 506, 307 r/w section 34 of IPC. It appears that at the instance of petitioner No.1, FIR in Cr.No.33/17 was registered and pursuant to that FIR, charge sheet was filed against the rival parties for the

¶25

¶26

offences under Sections 504, 324, 323, 354, 307 r/w section 34 of IPC, that means there is a case and counter case. It is not that there are two FIRs against the petitioners as submitted by the petitioners' counsel, rather what is forthcoming is, two FIRs against the rival parties.

¶27

It may be noted that in the charge sheet filed against the petitioners, the material witnesses are CWs 1 to 7 who are all accused in another charge sheet. The grievance is that the investigating officer did not examine independent witnesses. The Trial Court has clearly stated in its order that merely because the witnesses are the relatives, it cannot be a ground to reject their statements. This observation of the Trial Court is correct. The case is still at the stage of framing charge. It is not necessary that always some independent witnesses should be examined. Merely for the reason that the witnesses are related, no inference can be drawn at the stage of framing charge that they

¶28

¶29

are interested. After recording evidence and at the time of appreciating evidence, the Trial Court has to examine whether there is any element of interestedness in the testimonies of the related witnesses in order to falsely implicate the accused. Only if the interestedness is forthcoming in the testimony, then the Trial Court may draw suitable inference. At the stage of framing charge, no such inference can be drawn and it cannot be a ground for discharging the accused.

¶30

In this view, I do not find any infirmity in the

¶31

order passed by the Trial Court. I do not find any merit in this petition and therefore it is dismissed.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader Sri. K.S.Abhijith is permitted to file memo of appearance.

¶33

Consequently, I.A.2/2021 for stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/- JUDGE

¶35

Dvr:

Smt. Shanthamma v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanthamma 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

Sri.Manjeshwara Vs Sri.Dharme Gowda

R. Geetha Vs Shanthamma

Shabina Syed Khasim Vs the State of Karnataka

T.D.Begure Gowda Vs C.N.Murthy

Smt Vinaya S Shetty Vs M/S Makara Jyothi Chits Pvt. Ltd.

Ananda Vs State of Karnataka