Allowed¶53

Smt Sabakka v. Smt Sumitra W/O Siddaram Karidakannavar

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2025CRL.P/100663/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 319 Cr.P.C.; additional accused; impleadment; locus standi of co-accused; power vests solely in trial court; prosecution application or suo motu; General Power of Attorney (GPA) fabrication; IPC Sections 419, 420, 468 read with Section 34; CC No.34/2011 JMFC-III Belagavi; Crl.RP No.58/2024 VIII Addl. Sessions Judge Belagavi; CRL.P No. 100663 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench; Justice Hemant Chandangoudar; petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 19.9.2024 passed in Crl.RP No.58/2024 by the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi, quashed. ¶53

Smt Sabakka Vs Smt Sumitra W/O Siddaram Karidakannavar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 19.9.2024 passed in Crl.RP No.58/2024 by the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi, quashed.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (accused Nos.3 to 7), being co-accused, have locus standi to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to array additional accused. +2 more

¶48

Court's answer

Co-accused (here, accused Nos.3 to 7) do not have locus standi to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to array additional accused.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is vested solely in the trial court, exercisable either on an application by the prosecution or suo motu.

¶48

Key takeaways

There is no evidence on record establishing that the children of accused No.1 played any role in the alleged fabrication of the General Power of Attorney (GPA).ratio¶48
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly; it requires strong and cogent evidence of active participation and prima facie evidence of complicity, and the application can be moved only by the prosecution or acted upon by the court suo motu.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS (High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Hemant Chandangoudar J., 12.02.2025): Accused Nos.3 to 7, co-accused in CC No.34/2011 (offences under Ss.419, 420, 468 r/w S.34 IPC) pending before JMFC-III, Belagavi, had sought impleadment of the children of accused No.1 as additional accused under S.319 Cr.P.C., alleging fabrication of a General Power of Attorney. The Court held that co-accused have no locus standi to move a S.319 application; the power to summon additional accused vests solely in the trial court, exercisable on the prosecution's application or suo motu (para 48 of the order). There being no evidence implicating the children of accused No.1 in the alleged GPA fabrication, the S.319 application was held not maintainable (paras 48-49). Petition allowed; order dated 19.9.2024 in Crl.RP No.58/2024 of the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi, quashed (paras 52-53).

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2827 CRL.P No. 100663 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100663 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. SABAKKA W/O. RAMACHANDRA PITAGI @ PATIL, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANGA-JAMUNA ARAG ROAD, MANGSULI, KAGWAD-591223, TQ. KAGWAD/ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶6

SMT. NEETA W/O. ANANT KHANNUKAR AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUJAWAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶7

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:28 +0530

¶8

SMT. MANDA @ LAXMI W/O. MOHAN PATIL AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANGA-JAMUNA ARAG ROAD, MANGSULI, KAGWAD-591223, TQ. KAGWAD/ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶9

SHRI. DINANATH S/O. SHIVAJI PATIL AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GANGA-JAMUNA ARAG ROAD, MANGSULI, KAGWAD-591223, TQ. KAGWAD/ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. SUMITRA W/O. SIDDARAM KARIDAKANNAVAR, AGE. 73 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2827 CRL.P No. 100663 of 2025

¶16

OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHUKURWAR PETH, SAMBRA, BELAGAVI-591124, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶17

SHRI. SANJAY S/O. SIDDARAM KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SHUKURWAR PETH, SAMBRA, BELAGAVI-591124, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶18

SHRI. RAJARAM S/O. SIDDARAM KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SHUKURWAR PETH, SAMBRA, BELAGAVI-591124, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶19

SHRI. SHANKAR S/O. SIDDARAM KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SHUKURWAR PETH, SAMBRA, BELAGAVI-591124, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶20

SHRI. KISAN S/O. SIDDARAM KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SHUKURWAR PETH, SAMBRA, BELAGAVI-591124, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶21

SMT. SAPANA W/O. SHANKAR JALIKATTI AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 356, SHUKURWAR PETH SAMBRA, BELAGAVI-591124, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶22

SMT. MAYA W/O. KRISHNA PATIL AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 356, SHUKURWAR PETH, SAMBRA, BELAGAVI-591124, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2827 CRL.P No. 100663 of 2025

¶24

SMT. MADHURI W/O. MAHESH HUNDRE AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 366, MAIN ROAD, JYOTI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-591124, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶25

SHRI. AKHALAKAHMED MOHAMMEDSHAH RAIBAGI AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GOUSIA TOWER, H.NO.1589, NAVI GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590003, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶26

SHRI. RAHID S/O. ABDULRAZZAK MULLA AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO. 2716, SECTOR NO. 12, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶27

SHRI. ARUN S/O. BHIMRAO SHIVANE AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 4373/A, CHAVAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶28

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MARIHAL P.S., BELAGAVI, RPTD BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT. DHARWAD-580011.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JMFC-III, BELAGAVI IN CC NO.34/2011 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.3 TO 6 U/S 319 OF CR.P.C. AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF VIII ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL.R.P. NO.58/2024 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 TO 6 U/S 319 OF CR.P.C.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2827 CRL.P No. 100663 of 2025

¶35

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.12.

¶38

The petitioners (accused Nos.3 to 7), who are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), have filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to implead the children of accused No.1 as additional accused (accused Nos.2 to 11) on the ground that they allegedly fabricated a General Power of Attorney (GPA).

¶39

Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. confers discretionary power upon the trial court to proceed against other persons who appear to be guilty of the offence, even if they were not initially named as accused in the charge sheet. The provision stipulates that:

¶40

“Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person, not being the accused, has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.”

¶41

The scope and application of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Is as follows :

¶42

• The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and should be exercised sparingly.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2827 CRL.P No. 100663 of 2025

¶45

• There must be strong and cogent evidence that the person sought to be arrayed as an accused has actively participated in the commission of the offence.

¶46

• The mere suspicion or possibility of involvement is insufficient; there must be prima facie evidence of their complicity.

¶47

• The application for impleading an additional accused can be moved only by the prosecution or the Court may act suo motu upon discovering incriminating evidence during the course of trial.

¶48

In the present case, there is no evidence on record to establish that the children of accused No.1 played any role in the alleged fabrication of the General Power of Attorney (GPA). The petitioners (accused Nos.3 to 7), being co-accused in the proceedings, do not have locus standi to file an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. seeking to array additional accused. The power to summon additional accused is vested solely in the trial court, and it can be exercised either on an application by the prosecution or suo motu if the court finds prima facie material indicating the involvement of such persons.

¶49

In light of the above legal principles, the application filed by the petitioners (accused Nos.3 to 7) under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2827 CRL.P No. 100663 of 2025

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The petition is allowed.

¶53

ii) The impugned order dated 19.9.2024 passed in Crl.RP No.58/2024 by the learned VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is hereby quashed.

¶54

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶55

BKM CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt Sabakka v. Smt Sumitra W/O Siddaram Karidakannavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sabakka v. Smt Sumitra W/O Siddaram Karidakannavar

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

Sri Kumar S/O Vithalgouda Goudar Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna v. Gudisagar Vs State of Karnataka

Anil Kumar Gudisagar Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Balaji Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Kumar S/O Yashwant Dhamannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bharat S/O Basavaraj Bommai Vs the State of Karnataka