Allowed

The State by Women Police v. Gangadharachar. H. J.

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2024CRL.P/2907/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the State's criminal petition. It quashed the Trial Court's order rejecting an application to summon witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and directed the Trial Court to summon CWs. 5 and 6 for examination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application under S. 311 Cr.P.C. was set aside; the state was permitted to summon CWs. 5 and 6 for examination; the Trial Court was directed to ensure their presence t

The State by Women Police Vs Gangadharachar. H. J. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:2119 CRL.P No. 2907 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE STATE BY WOMEN POLICE, DAVANAGERE. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYANA A., HCGP)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

GANGADHARACHAR H. J., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. JAYACHANDRAMURTHY, NEAR HANUMANTH TEMPLE, HENUR HEBBALLI, CHITRADURGA CITY, CHITRADURGA – 577 554.

¶13

MYTRADEVI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. JAYACHANDRAMURTHY, DOOR NO.375, 7^TH CROSS,2^nd MAIN, NEAR CHURCH NALLURA, BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶14

PANCHAKSHARI, S/O NAGESHACHAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, DOOR NO.162, 6^TH CROSS,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:2119 CRL.P No. 2907 of 2023

¶17

CHOWDESHWARI NAGARA, LAGGERE, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU CITY – 560 058.

¶18

LATHA, MAJOR, W/O. SRIDHARACHARI, HOLALKERE, CHITRADURGA – 577 526.

¶19

SRIDHARACHARI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. PAPCHAR, SRI. VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA, 5^TH CROSS, NEAR MARVADI, HOLALKERE, DAVANAGERE, CHITRADURGA – 577 526.

¶20

SRIDHAR H. J., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O JAYACHANDRAMURTHY, DOOR NO.375, NALLURAHALLI, 7^TH CROSS, BENGALURU EAST, BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶21

BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O. THIRTHACHARI, DOOR NO.135, 6^TH CROSS, CHOWDESHWARINAGARA, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC III COURT, DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.74/2018 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED 01.12.2022 FILED BY THE STATE U/S.311 OF CR.P.C., BEFORE LEARNED JMFC III COURT, DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.74/2018.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:2119 CRL.P No. 2907 of 2023

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Looking into the facts and circumstance of the case, issuing notice to the respondents is hereby dispensed with.

¶30

This petition is filed by the State under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Davanagere in C.C.No.74/2018, for having rejected the application dated 01.12.2022 filed by the State under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for summoning CWs.5 and 6.

¶31

The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the de-facto complaint was filed before the Women Police Station, Davanagere Central Circle, Davanagere, against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 470, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge-sheet has been filed and the trial was begun. The prosecution has examined some of the witnesses.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:2119 CRL.P No. 2907 of 2023

¶33

Some of the witnesses had not turned out. The Investigating Officer unable to secure the presence of the witnesses. Hence, the Trial Court dropped the issuance of summons to CWs.4, 5 and 6. Subsequently, the State has filed an application for summoning CWs.5 and 6 as they are the material witnesses to the case. Hence, the State

¶34

has filed an application for recalling of summoning the witnesses under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which came be rejected. Hence, the petitioner-State is before this Court.

¶35

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners on record and perusing the records, it reveals that the summons was issued to CWs.4 to 6 and as the Investigating Officer was unable to secure their presence, issuing summons had been dropped. However, at later stage, the prosecution realized that they are very important witnesses and therefore, they want to examine those prosecution witnesses. Of course, the Trial Court may be on various reasons has dropped the summons. Mere issuing summons is not enough for

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2119 CRL.P No. 2907 of 2023

¶37

securing the presence of witnesses; coercive steps shall have to be taken for summoning the witnesses by issuing Bailable Warrant and also Non-Bailable Warrant. Mere issuance of summons has been dropped, that itself does not disable the prosecution to summon those witnesses. Even otherwise, if any witnesses were not cited as witnesses by the Investigating Officer, the Court has power to summon those witnesses even though the prosecution has not filed any such application. The Court can suo motu order for summoning any witness, if they are found necessary for adjudication of the matter. Such being the case, the power of Trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, to summon material witness either examined or re-examined or examine person present. Therefore, the Trial Court ought to have recalled the witnesses for the purpose of adjudication of the matter. If those witnesses were summoned and examined by the prosecution, no prejudice will be caused to the accused persons. Hence, I am of the view that the order of the Trial Court is not accepted. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:2119 CRL.P No. 2907 of 2023

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The petition is allowed.;

¶42

(ii) The impugned order 05.12.2022 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Davanagere in C.C.No.74/2018, for rejection of the application dated 01.12.2022 filed by the State under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., is set aside;

¶43

(iii) The application is allowed, permitting the prosecution to summon CWs.5 and 6 to examine on their behalf;

¶44

(iv) The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the witnesses, if not present, by taking coercive steps.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl.No.: 28

¶47

The State by Women Police v. Gangadharachar. H. J.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State by Women Police v. Gangadharachar. H. J.

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 H G Rajanna Vs Sri a S Shivanna

Shri. Avinash S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Chandramma, Vs Smt. Sumalatha D.P.

Shri Dattatreya Alias Data S/O Shivananda Janthinakatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shanmukha S Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravikumar G H Vs State of Honnali P.S.