Allowed

Sri. Radhakrishna Kamath, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2023CRL.P/3657/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an order arraigning the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, finding no prima facie material due to inconsistencies between PW1's testimony and the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.10.2022 under Section 319 CrPC is quashed and the application is dismissed against the petitioner.

Sri. Radhakrishna Kamath, Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:26859 CRL.P No. 3657 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3657 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RADHAKRISHNA KAMATH, S/O M V KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, PUBLIC RELATION MANAGER, M/S RANGA DORAI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SHANKARPURAM, BENGALURU 560 004, AND ALSO NO. 436, 8TH MAIN 4TH CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, GAVIPURAM EXTENTION, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU 580 019.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SHANKARA POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJPET SUB DIVISION, BENGLURU CITY 560 004, REPT. BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT JAYASHREE REJENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O MR RAJENDRA PRASAD, NO 728, 6TH CROSS, KRISHNA NANDI ROAD, SRINAGARA, BENGALURU 560 050.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. H S SHANKAR, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.18920/2015, PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 28.10.2022, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:26859 CRL.P No. 3657 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR alleging that her husband was admitted to Rangadore Memorial Hospital on 9.9.2014 for fistula surgery, and after a couple of hours of surgery, her husband was administered post operative treatment in the form of Sitz bath, and instead of providing warm water, boiling water was used to make the patient sit in the Sitz bath bucket by the water boy in the presence of duty doctor, due to which, the patient suffered deep burn injuries in the private parts and buttocks, and that, the hospital authorities blamed the patient. Initially, the hospital agreed to treat the burn injuries and perform surgery at their cost. However, the respondent No.2 was given an expensive bill though it was within their knowledge that the respondent No.2 was from a poor financial background. The respondent No.2 did not pay the bills, and she was wrongly restrained, abused in filthy language and threatened with dire consequence by the accused herein. The police, after the investigation, submitted the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

¶22

PW1, who is son-in-law of the first informant, tendered evidence, and in the said evidence, he has stated that, the petitioner - accused No.2 has submitted the forged bills and he along with the accused No.1 wrongly restrained the defacto complainant, and also threatened her with dire consequence and abused her in filthy language.

¶23

The prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.PC to arraign the petitioner as additional accused in

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:26859 CRL.P No. 3657 of 2023

¶26

view of the allegation made by PW1 in his examination-in-chief. The learned Magistrate, after issuing notice and hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order arraigning the petitioner as an additional accused. Hence, this petition.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State.

¶28

Initially, the charge sheet was filed against the accused No.1 alleging that, he wrongly restrained the defacto complainant, threatened her with dire consequence, and also abused her in filthy language. The allegation made against the petitioner in examination-in-chief of PW1 is that, he along with others submitted the forged bills, and wrongly restrained the defacto complainant.

¶29

In the first information report, the defacto complainant has categorically stated that, the defacto complainant was manhandled by the accused No.1, and at the instance of the petitioner herein, he let go the defacto complainant. The allegation made by PW1 that, the petitioner along with other accused No.1 restrained the defacto complainant is contrary to the allegation made in the FIR by the defacto complainant. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate arraigning the petitioner as an accused in the absence of any prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:26859 CRL.P No. 3657 of 2023

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶34

ii) The impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed in CC No.18920/2015 by the learned XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.PC insofar as it relates to the petitioner - accused No.2 is hereby quashed and consequently, the said application is dismissed as against the petitioner - accused No.2 herein.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

BKM

Sri. Radhakrishna Kamath, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Radhakrishna Kamath, v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr. Garudappa. v Vs State of Karnataka

Ratish M Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Siddalingappa Vs the State of Karnataka

H Hamza Vs State of Karnataka

N Srilakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Srikrishnadevarayalu Vs the State of Karnataka