Allowed

Smt. Sasikala T.R. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2023CRL.P/6409/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., setting aside the trial court's order rejecting a request to frame additional charges for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court directed the trial court to frame these charges in addition to previously ordered charges.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition allowed; the impugned order set aside; the trial court directed to frame charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act in addition to previously ordered charges.

Smt. Sasikala T.R. Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:27233 CRL.P No. 6409 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6409 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SASIKALA T.R. W/O KALKIRI THULASEEDHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/OF FLAT NO. 1044, A-BLOCK, SHOBHA ROSE APARTMENT, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560066. PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO.G-18, B-BLOCK AT NAKSHATRA NESTILO NARAYANAPPA GARDEN, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHETAN JADHAV.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶13

KALKIRI THULASEEDHAR REDDY S/O RAVINDRANATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/AT NO-3-36, REDDYWARI PALLI, AGRAHARAM POST, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:27233 CRL.P No. 6409 of 2023

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.NO.690/2021, DATED 17.06.2023 THEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE STATE FOR ALTERATION OF CHARGE FILED UNDER SECTION 216 OF CR.P.C. FOR FRAMING OF CHARGES UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Looking to facts and circumstances of the case, issuing notice to the respondent No.2 is hereby dispensed with. Learned Addl.S.PP takes notice for the state.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.S.P.P.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being complainant before the trial court filed an application before the trial court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for alteration of the charges to frame additional charges for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was rejected by the trial court. Therefore, the petitioner approached this court in Crl.P.No.7080/2022 and this court while passing the order, allowed the petition and directed the trial court to frame the additional charges for the offence punishable under Section

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:27233 CRL.P No. 6409 of 2023

¶23

¶24

498A of IPC and sections 9 and 10 of POCSO Act. However the provision under sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act not mentioned in the order. Therefore the petitioner filed another application for framing additional charge which came to be rejected, hence petitioner is before this court.

¶25

Having heard the arguments and perused the records, which reveals ofcourse this court already passed an order in favour of the petitioner, directing the trial court to frame the additional charges section under sections 498A of IPC and Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act. But the observation made by this court at 'Para 4 and 5' of the order in Crl.P.No.7080/2022 by this court wherein it is categorically stated that the offences under Section 498A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, is made out and the court can frame additional or alter charge prior to the passing of the final judgment.

¶26

However, while passing the final order of the operative portion Sections 3 and 4 of the DP act has been missed out. Though the petitioner could have approached this court by filing 'Being spoken to' for making correction in the order, but the petitioner chose to file this petition. However,

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:27233 CRL.P No. 6409 of 2023

¶28

there is no bar for filing this petition, as the trial court once again rejected the application.

¶29

It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per the Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., even if this court passed an order for altering any charges, if the trial court find any material for framing additional charges and the court can always have power to alter the charges prior to the passing of the judgment after providing opportunity to the parties for leading additional evidence or further cross examination. Such being the case, the trial court committed error in refusing to alter the charges or frame the additional charges. Therefore the order under challenge is deserved to be set aside.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶31

The trial court is directed to frame the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act in addition to the other charges already ordered by this court in the earlier Crl.P.No.7080/2022.

¶32

AKV-List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

Smt. Sasikala T.R. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sasikala T.R. v. 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

Ms Roopa Lakshmi Vs Ilantus Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Padmini Sadanandhan Vs Sri M Kempanna

Devendrappa Vs Smt. Yellamma

Shri N.V. Vinodh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Syed Akbar Vs Smt. Nazneen Begum

Sri Anantha Padmanabha Vs Sri a Murugesha