Allowed

Raju S/O Shaabu Karakaramundi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024CRL.P/102662/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners facing notice on a Section 319 Cr.P.C. application in a dowry case sought quashing of the notice, contending no pre-summoning hearing is mandated. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Yashodhan Singh, the High Court held no hearing is required and quashed the order issuing notice, directing the Magistrate to decide the application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to petitioners on the Section 319 Cr.P.C. application quashed; Magistrate directed to decide the application on merits.

Raju S/O Shaabu Karakaramundi Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12692 CRL.P No. 102662 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102662 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJU S/O. SHAABU KARAKARAMUNDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MUNAVALLI VILLAGE, TALUKA-SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591126.

¶9

BASAPPA S/O. BALAPPA KARAKARAMUNDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: VANNUR VILLAGE, TALUKA - BAILHONGAL, DIST-BELAGAVI- 591102.

¶10

YAMANAPPA S/O. BALAPPA KARAKARAMUNDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: VANNUR VILLAGE, TALUKA-BAILHONGAL, DIST-BELAGAVI-591102.

¶11

BHARATHI H M

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BY MURGOD POLICE STATION- 580011.

¶17

ASHA W/O. ADIVEPPA EMMI ALIAS KARAKARAMUNDI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HIREBUDANURU VILLAGE, TALUKA-SAUNDATTI, DIST - BELAGAVI-591126.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12692 CRL.P No. 102662 of 2024

¶21

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED (U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.)(U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI, IN C.C.NO. 237/2020 (CRIME NO. 224/2019 OF MURGOD POLICE STATION) AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 10 TO 12 ARE CONCERNED REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES U/SEC. 498A, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3, 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AS FAR AS PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO.10, 11, 12) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by the petitioners who are sought to be arraigned as accused on application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. challenging the notice issued to them on application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C in C.C.No.237/2020 by I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti. In C.C.No.237/2020 an application has been filed by learned APP under Section 319 of Cr.P.C seeking adding of the petitioners herein as accused persons on the basis of evidence of PW-1. The said notice issued has been sought to be quashed in the present petition.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12692 CRL.P No. 102662 of 2024

¶28

The learned counsel for petitioners relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yashodhan Singh and Others V/s The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another¹ would contend that there is no mandate of law under Section 319 of Cr.P.C to issue notice to the persons who are sought to be arraigned as accused persons. On that ground, he sought quashing of the notice issued to the petitioners.

¶29

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yashodhan Singh and Others V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) held as under:

¶30

“ 32. Merely because in certain proceedings the persons summoned had been provided an opportunity of being heard cannot be the same thing as stating that it is a mandatory requirement or a precondition that at the time of summoning a person under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., he should be given an opportunity of being heard. That is not the mandate of law

¶31

1 2023 Live Law (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12692 CRL.P No. 102662 of 2024

¶33

inasmuch as Section 319 clearly uses the expression “to proceed” which means to proceed with the trial and not to jeopardise the trial at the instance of the person(s) summoned by conducting a mini trial or a trial within a trial thereby derailing the main trial of the case and particularly against the accused who are already facing trail and who may be in custody. A person who is summoned in exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot hijack the trial so to say and deviate from its focus and take it to a tangent in order to bolster his own case in a bid to escape trial. All that is contemplated when a person is summoned to appear is to ascertain that he is the very person who was summoned and if any summoned person fails to appear on the given date. On the appearance of the summoned person, no procedure of an inquiry or opportunity of being heard is envisaged before been added as an accused to the list of accused already facing trial unless such a summoned person had already been discharged, in which event, an inquiry is

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12692 CRL.P No. 102662 of 2024

¶35

contemplated as discussed above. Thus, the contention that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial is clearly not contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also observed by this Court in Hardeep Singh that such a summoned person can assail a summoning order before a superior Court and will also have the right of cross examining the witnesses as well as can let in his defence evidence, if any.

¶36

Thus, the lateral entry of a person summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is only to face the trial along with other accused. This, being a salutary provision in order to meet the ends of justice, the same cannot be diluted by importing within the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C. principles of natural justice which in any case would be followed during the trial.

¶37

It is well settled that principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula and they would depend upon the facts of each case and the object

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12692 CRL.P No. 102662 of 2024

¶39

and purpose to be achieved under a provision of law.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not think that the judgment in Jogendra Yadav calls for any re-consideration and the said observation in paragraph 9 as extracted supra is relatable only to the facts of the said case. Thus, the principle of hearing a person who is summoned cannot be read into Section 319 Cr.P.C. Such a procedure is not at all contemplated therein. In the circumstances, we do not accept the contentions of the appellants herein.

¶41

4. In view of the above, the notice issued to the

¶42

petitioners on an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. requires to be quashed.

¶43