Allowed¶37

Mrs. Manisha W/O Pundalikrao Kadam Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2025CRL.P/100523/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Addition of accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. — quashing of proceedings where FIR and Section 161 statements contain no allegation of instigation and witnesses offer only general and omnibus allegations — order under S.319 set aside, application dismissed, proceedings qua added accused Nos.3 and 4 quashed — Offences under Ss.341, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC — CRL.P No.100523 of 2022 — High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench — decided 19.02.2025 by Hemant Chandangoudar, J.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed: order dated 25.01.2022 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in C.C. No.781/2014 set aside and the said application dismissed; criminal proceedings in C.C. No.781/2014 qua petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 quashed; pending I.As. disposed. ¶37

Mrs. Manisha W/O Pundalikrao Kadam Patil Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. adding the petitioners as accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C. No.781/2014 is legally sustainable, given that neither the FIR nor the Section 161 statements allege instigation by them.

¶30

Court's answer

P.W.1 and P.W.6 did not specify how or in what manner the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 to commit the crime, offering only general and omnibus allegations.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any substantial evidence to support the claim that the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 instigated accused Nos.1 and 2, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is not legally sustainable.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by persons added as accused Nos.3 and 4 to C.C. No.781/2014 (IV JMFC, Belagavi; Crime No.305/2013; offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC) pursuant to the Trial Court's order dated 25.01.2022 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. HELD, allowing the petition: the FIR made no mention of accused No.4's presence and the complainant's further statement said accused No.3's name was included inadvertently; neither the FIR nor the Section 161 statement contained any allegation that the petitioners instigated accused Nos.1 and 2; P.W.1 and P.W.6 did not specify how or in what manner the petitioners instigated the offence, offering only general and omnibus allegations. In the absence of substantial evidence of instigation, the impugned order was held not legally sustainable; it was set aside, the Section 319 application dismissed, and proceedings in C.C. No.781/2014 qua the petitioners quashed. Pending interlocutory applications disposed accordingly.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3336 CRL.P No. 100523 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100523 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. MANISHA, W/O. PUNDALIKRAO KADAM PATIL, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PAVASE GALLI, UCHAGOUN, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.

¶9

SHRI. UMESH GUNDU KOLI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. PAVASE GALLI, UCHAGOUN, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARAD M.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OFKARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:10 +0530

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KAKATI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶15

SHRI. GANASHYAM BHARMANNA PATIL, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. PAVASE GALLI, UCHAGOUN, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SHREEVASTSA HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4, IN CC NO.781/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3336 CRL.P No. 100523 of 2022

¶21

OF THE IV JMFC, BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 341, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN CRIME NO.305/2013.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are before this Court.

¶26

The second respondent lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted and abused him in filthy language. In his further statement, the second respondent stated that accused No. 3 was not present at the spot on the date of the incident and that her name had been mentioned inadvertently. Following investigation, the police dropped accused No. 3 from the charge sheet. However, during examination-in-chief, the complainant (examined as P.W.1) and the eyewitness (P.W.6) stated that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were also present at the spot on the date of the incident and abetted accused Nos. 1 and 2 in committing the crime. Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which the Trial Court allowed, thereby including petitioners as accused Nos. 3 and 4.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3336 CRL.P No. 100523 of 2022

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 (State), and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

¶30

In the FIR, there is no mention of the presence of accused No. 4 at the spot, and the allegation of assault and abuse in filthy language is directed only against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Moreover, in his further statement, the complainant specifically stated that accused No. 3 was not present at the spot on the date of the incident and that her name had been included inadvertently. During examination-in-chief, both P.W.1 and P.W.6 stated that petitioners/accused Nos. 3 and 4 instigated accused Nos. 1 and 2 to commit the crime. However, neither the FIR nor the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. contains any allegation that petitioners/accused Nos. 3 and 4 instigated accused Nos. 1 and 2 to commit the crime. Furthermore, P.W.1 and P.W.6 did not specify how or in what manner the petitioners/accused instigated accused Nos. 1 and 2 to commit the crime, offering only general and omnibus allegations. In the absence of any substantial evidence to support the claim that petitioners/accused Nos. 3 and 4 instigated accused Nos. 1 and 2, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is not legally sustainable.

¶31

Hence, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3336 CRL.P No. 100523 of 2022

¶36

ii) The order dated 25.01.2022 passed on the application filed by prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. in C.C. No.781/2014 by the IV JMFC, Belagavi, is hereby set aside, and consequently the said application is dismissed.

¶37

iii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.781/2014 pending on the file of the IV JMFC, Belagavi, insofar as it relates to petitioners/accused No.3 and 4, is hereby quashed.

¶38

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed off accordingly.

¶39

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶40

KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Mrs. Manisha W/O Pundalikrao Kadam Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Manisha W/O Pundalikrao Kadam Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Shivalingappa Alias Shivakumar K. Maigur Vs the State of Karnataka

Bashirahamad S/O. Allabaksha Aralikatti, Vs the State of Karnataka

Imamsab S/O. Maktumsab Gudageri, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Vishalakshi Bhat Vs Mr Sunder Rajan M K

Shri. Latifkhan S/O. Ammerkhan Pathan Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Latifkhan S/O. Ammerkhan Pathan Vs the State of Karnataka