Mr Syed Imran Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, EXAMINE THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SATISFYING ITSELF AS TO THE CORRECTNESS, LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 30.01.2023 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA ANNEXG IN CRIMINAL REV. PETITION NO.5002/2022 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SRIRANGAPATNA IN CC NO. 118/2020 ANNEX-E ON APPLICATION FILED U/S 239 OF CR.P.C AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for State and perused the material on record.

¶24

Srirangapatna Police, Mandya have filed charge sheet in their Police Station Crime No.19/2020 against accused Nos.1 to 4 for offences punishable under Section 392, 394 and 397 of IPC. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:11727 WP No. 8850 of 2023

¶27

Application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate for discharge came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2021. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.5002/2022 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 30.01.2023, confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶28

Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders

¶29

passed by the Courts below has preferred this petition praying to set-aside both the orders and to quash the entire charge sheet.

¶30

FIR came to be registered on a complaint lodged by one Sadiq against four unknown persons for offences punishable under Section 392 and 394 of IPC. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 22.01.2020 at about 5.45 p.m., when the complainant was proceeding on Mysore-Bangalore road in a Mini Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.KA-39-D-9939, two persons came on a motor cycle and picked a quarrel with him and slapped on his cheek saying that his tipper touched their vehicle and demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, two more persons came in another motor cycle and snatched his

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:11727 WP No. 8850 of 2023

¶33

mobile phone and took him in their two wheeler and robbed a cash of Rs.16,000/-, silver bracelet, silver ring and left him and went away.

¶34

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while filing charge sheet, Section 397 of IPC has been invoked, even though the ingredients of the said offence are not made out since, it is not the case of prosecution that the accused have used any deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt to the victim.

¶35

He contended that invocation of Sections 394 and 397 of IPC is highly misconceived and when Section 397 of IPC is not attracted, the matter has to be tried by the learned Magistrate, on the other hand, in view of dismissal of the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, the matter has now been committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as SC.No.5009/2024.

¶36

The learned counsel further contended that, while dismissing criminal revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge has made observations on the merits of the case and

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:11727 WP No. 8850 of 2023

¶39

therefore, petitioner's right to seek discharge before the Sessions Court after committal of the case, is prejudiced.

¶40

A careful perusal of the complaint averments as well as the charge sheet materials does not show use of any deadly weapon by the accused or causing grievous hurt to the complainant while committing robbery as alleged. When it is not the case of prosecution that the accused have used any deadly weapon and when no materials are forthcoming to show that the complainant has sustained grevious injury, invocation of Section 397 of IPC is not justified.

¶41

It is stated in the complaint that accused slapped the victim and as per charge sheet, accused No.1 has assaulted him with a stone. It cannot be said that the accused have used any deadly weapon or they attempted to cause the death of complainant. However, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that Section 394 of IPC is also not attracted cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶42

The learned Sessions Judge was right in observing that an application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate was not maintainable, since Section 397 of

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:11727 WP No. 8850 of 2023

¶45

IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, however erred in discussing the merits of the case, though observed, merits of the case can not be discussed at the stage of considering discharge application.

¶46

The learned Magistrate while dismissing the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C has observed that Section 397 of IPC is exclusively triable by Sessions Court. However, this Court find insufficient material for framing charge under Section 397 of IPC. This Court is of the view that the case has to be tried by the learned Magistrate for offences under Section 392 and 394 of IPC.

¶47

The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision petition has directed the records to be sent back to the trial Court. It is now submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that, the Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Court and it is numbered as SC.No.5009/2024.

¶48

Hence, to the above extent the impugned order has to be set-aside. Accordingly, the following:

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:11727 WP No. 8850 of 2023

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The petition is partly-allowed .

¶53

ii. The order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C insofar as Section 397 of IPC is set-aside.

¶54

iii. If the matter is already committed to the Court of Sessions, learned Sessions Judge shall remit the case back to the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate shall frame charges against the accused for offences punishable under Section 392 and 394 of IPC and proceed in accordance with law.

¶55

iv. I.A.Nos.1/2023 and 1/2025 stands disposed

¶56

of .

¶57

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶58

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT: BHK

Mr Syed Imran v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Syed Imran v. 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

Smt. O R Kalpana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pawan Kumar T S Vs Smt Rashmi M

Mr. Sathish Kumar Shanmugam Vs State of Karnataka

Puttaraju M.N. Vs the District Appropriate Authority

Sri Narayan Mahadevrao Biradar Vs M/S Padmavathi Enterprises

M/S. South Gallery Marketing Vs M/S. Venkatgiri Trading