Allowed

Sri Mahesh Kumar v. State by

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2023CRL.RP/130/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the order rejecting the petitioner's request for summons of witnesses cited in his defence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Trial Court to summon the witnesses after verifying their relevancy.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application under Sections 91 and 243 Cr.P.C. is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to issue summons to the witnesses cited in the petitioner's defence statement u

Sri Mahesh Kumar Vs State by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 130 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 130 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MAHESH KUMAR S/O SRI. CHIKKAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.137, AVVANA MANE, GANDHINAGARA, BHADRAVATGHI SHIVAMOGGA-577301.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR M.S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAVI SHANKAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE BY SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.612/2015 DATED 25.10.2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST

¶17

¶18

CRL.RP No. 130 of 2022

¶19

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIIMOGA DISMISSING APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITION UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 243 OF CR.PC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.612/2015 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga has filed this revision petition challenging the correctness of the order dated 25.10.2021 passed therein, by which an application filed by him under Sections 91 and 243 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.

¶23

The learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances and involving similar facts against the very same accused in C.C.No.611/2015, a similar application filed, was rejected by the Trial Court and that this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1343/2019 had allowed the revision petition and granted an opportunity to the petitioner therein to lead his defence evidence. He therefore, submits that a similar order be passed in the present case also.

¶24

¶25

CRL.RP No. 130 of 2022

¶26

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶27

appearing for the respondent submits that the facts in C.C.No.611/2015 were entirely different from the facts in C.C.No.612/2015. He submitted that the statement of the accused before the Trial Court disclosed that the facts were entirely different and therefore, the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.1343/2019 cannot aid the petitioner in the present petition.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

¶29

It is seen from the records that the accused was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 420, 384, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. In his defence statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner had referred to various facts and had furnished a list of witnesses. Since the petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 384, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, it is imminent that

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No. 130 of 2022

¶32

fullest opportunity is granted to the petitioner to establish his innocence by leading his evidence in defence by summoning the witnesses who are cited in his statement.

¶33

In that view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga in C.C.No.612/2015 is set aside. Consequently, the Trial Court is directed to issue appropriate summons to the witnesses cited in the statement filed by the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. subject to its satisfactory regarding relevancy of the

witness.

Sd/JUDGE

PMR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Sri Mahesh Kumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahesh Kumar 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

Naga Vs State of Karnataka

Mahadevaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raghuram Vs M/S S S Enterprises

Sri. R. Kantharaja Vs Sri. P. Nagaraja

Manjunatha a Vs Smt M Shruthi

Muthoot Finance Limited Vs State of Karnataka