Allowed

Sri.M. Madhusudhan Rao v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024CRL.RP/271/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Petition challenging the framing of charges against the petitioners. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders for framing the charge, and directed the Trial Court to hear the counsel before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 07.12.2023 and charge framed against accused Nos. 2 to 4 on 10.01.2024 set aside; Trial Court directed to hear both counsels and pass appropriate order.

Sri.M. Madhusudhan Rao Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11680 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 271 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M.MADHUSUDHAN RAO S/O LATE KRISHNAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.19-3.2/C2/A7 JAYANAGAR, BEHIND SILVER BELLS SCHOOL, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. JAMUNA M., W/O M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.19-3.2/C2/A7 JAYANAGAR, BEHIND SILVER BELLS SCHOOL, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501

¶11

SRI B. GOPINATH NAIDU S/O RAMAMURTHY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.19-3.2/C2/A7 JAYANAGAR, BEHIND SILVER BELLS SCHOOL, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:11680 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2024

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560001

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. M. DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2023 FOR NOT PASSING VIDE ORDER WITH REGARD TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE BEFORE FRAMING OF THE CHARGES AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 IN C.C.NO.10652/2022 REGISTERED BY THE WILSON GARDEN POLICE IN CR.NO.167/2021 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S.408, 420, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶24

HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶25

The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the Trial Court has not heard the matter even though case is set down for hearing before charge. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court the order sheet dated 07.12.2023, wherein the Trial

¶26

Court has made an observation that hearing before charge

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11680 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2024

¶28

taken as ‘Nil’ and posted the matter for framing of charge. Thereafter, on the next date on 10.01.2024, the accused Nos.2 to 4 were present and E/P was filed on behalf of accused No.1 and the matter was kept for framing the charge and when the matter was again taken for framing the charge, accused Nos.2 to 4 were present and accused No.1 was absent and hence, E/P was rejected. The Trial Court framed the charge against the accused Nos.2 to 4 and accused persons did not plead guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the Trial Court issued NBW to accused No.1 for framing the charge and posted the matter before the Court.

¶29

The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners before this Court is that charge-sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and when the case was set down for hearing before charge, the Trial Court has proceeded to record that hearing before charge is taken as ‘Nil and not heard the matter and passed any order whether there is a material to frame the charge or not and learned HCGP for the respondent-State also not disputes the said fact. Even having considered the order sheet also, the Trial Court has observed

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11680 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2024

¶31

that hearing before charge is taken ‘Nil’ and the Trial Court ought to have heard the respective counsel and would have considered whether there is a material to frame the charge and

¶32

no such order is passed and instead, without hearing the respective counsel, posted the matter to frame the charge. Hence, the very framing of charge without hearing the respective counsel requires to be set aside.

¶33

It is also noticed by this Court that on all dates of hearing, these petitioners have not regularly appeared before the Trial Court and for one or the other reason, the accused persons have filed an application for exemption and even when the case was posted for charge also, the accused Nos.1 to 4 were present and at the time of framing the charge, the accused No.1 was absent and the Trial Court has issued NBW and the Court has to take note of the conduct of the revision petitioners and even though the case was filed in 2022, not assisting the Court in framing the charge and instead of coming before this Court on technicalities, the petitioners would have assisted the Trial Court in framing the charge. Hence, it is appropriate to give direction to the petitioners not to seek any exemption before the Trial Court without any genuine cause

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11680 CRL.RP No. 271 of 2024

¶35

i.e., except the medical ground and the very conduct of the accused persons is deprecated.

¶36

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶37

following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The revision petition is allowed.

¶40

(ii) The order dated 07.12.2023 proceeding to frame the charge is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to hear both the counsel and pass an appropriate order to proceed against the accused persons considering the material on record.

¶41

(iii) The petitioners/accused and their respective counsels are directed to be present before the Trial Court and directed to assist the Trial Court for hearing before framing the charge.

¶42

(iv) The charge framed against the accused Nos.2 to 4 vide order dated 10.01.2024 without hearing the parties is set aside and if the Trial Court finds any material, then shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sri.M. Madhusudhan Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.M. Madhusudhan Rao 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

Sri. Harishith S R Vs State of Karnataka

Rajashekar @ Raja Vs the State of Karnataka

Rahathulla Vs Shaik Mohammed

Mohammad Farooq @ Cheela Farooq Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa Vs Sri P N Venkataraghavan

Shri Omkara Murthy Vs Shri B C Chandrukumar