Allowed¶49

Tejash v. State by Kolar Town Ps

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026CRL.RP/199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning of proposed accused; premature invocation based on stray PW1 examination-in-chief statement; Hardeep Singh (2014) 3 SCC 92 test — evidence if uncontroverted must suffice to convict; CW2–CW4 yet to be examined; CW4 mobile video recording as best evidence; no application against five other assailants; assault on retired bailiff executing non-bailable warrant Ex.P.No.41 of 2008; IPC Sections 323, 332, 504, 506 r/w 34; FIR Crime No.22/2020 Kolar Town PS; Karnataka High Court criminal revision; impugned order set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.908 of 2021 by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Kolar set aside; matter remitted to the Trial Court to consider the Section 319 application afresh in the light of the observations made.

Tejash Vs State by Kolar Town Ps — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the prosecution's application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner (proposed accused no.3) solely on the basis of PW1's examination-in-chief statement, when CW2 to CW4 were yet to be examined.

¶28

Court's answer

The test to determine in considering an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is whether such evidence, if it remains uncontroverted, would be sufficient to convict the accused.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Merely for the reason that some material has come on record during the course of examination-in-chief of CW1, the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the prosecution's Section 319 application.

¶38

Key takeaways

The Trial Court was not justified in allowing the application solely based on the stray statement made by PW1.ratio¶43
The Trial Court ought to have recorded the evidence of CW2 to CW4 and thereafter proceeded to consider the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.ratio¶43
CW4, who allegedly recorded the incident on his mobile phone, had not been examined; the video recording would be the best piece of evidence to proceed against the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition No. 199 of 2024 under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. — Petitioner (proposed accused no.3, not charge-sheeted) challenged the order dated 09.06.2023 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Kolar in C.C.No.908/2021 allowing the prosecution's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon him. FIR Crime No.22/2020 (Sections 143, 147, 323, 332, 504, 506 & 149 IPC); charge sheet against accused nos.1 and 2 (Sections 323, 332, 504 & 506 r/w 34 IPC) for alleged assault on a retired bailiff executing a non-bailable warrant in Ex.P.No.41 of 2008. Relying on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, the Court held that the test is whether the evidence, if uncontroverted, would be sufficient to convict; a stray examination-in-chief statement of PW1 did not satisfy it, especially as CW2–CW4 (including CW4, the decree-holder eye-witness who allegedly videographed the incident) remained unexamined, and no application had been filed against the five other unnamed assailants. The Trial Court ought to have recorded CW2–CW4's evidence before considering the Section 319 application. Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 199 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

TEJASH S/O V. NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT HOUSING BOARD COLONY KOLAR - 563 101, PERMANENT ADDRESS BEGLLI, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KOLAR - 563 101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI VINOD N, ADV., FOR SRI SUNIL S NARAYAN, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY KOLAR TOWN PS - 563 101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.06.2023 (ANNEXURE C) PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM KOLAR IN C.C.NO.908/2021 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is before this Court in this Criminal

¶23

Revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 09.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.908 of 2021 by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Kolar allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C,

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Accused nos.1 and 2 were charge sheeted by Kolar Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 332, 504 & 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. In the said proceedings, prosecution had filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, to summon the petitioner herein for the purpose of standing trial for the charge sheeted offences. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide the order impugned and aggrieved by the same, the proposed accused no.3 is before this Court in this revision petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that solely based on the stray statement made by PW1, Trial Court

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

was not justified in allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. CW2 and CW3 are the other two alleged injured witnesses in the present case and CW4 is the alleged eye witness. He submits that according to the prosecution the incident in question was videographed and the video recording of the incident is very much available. Since petitioner was not found in the video, the police have not filed a charge sheet against him. Petitioner is a law student and for extraneous reasons, PW1 has stated against the petitioner during the course of his examination-in-chief. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶29

Per contra , learned HCGP has opposed the petition and has argued in support of the impugned order. He submits that deposition of PW1 makes out a case for the charge sheeted offences against the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶30

FIR in Crime No.22 of 2020 was initially registered by Kolar Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 332, 504, 506 & 149 of IPC against

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Narayanaswami V, his son and five others based on the first information dated 04.02.2020 submitted by Sri Narayanappa G - PW1. The police, after investigation, have filed charge sheet against accused no.1-Narayanaswami and accused no.2 B.Mohan. As per the charge sheet allegation, when the first informant along with CW.2 and CW3 had gone near the house of accused no.1 for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant, accused nos.1 and 2 allegedly assaulted CW.1 to CW3 and also criminally intimidated them. CW4 who is the decree holder is said to be the eye witness to the incident in question.

¶34

The first informant (CW1/PW1) during the course of his examination-in-chief, before the Trial Court has stated that on the alleged date of incident, when he along with CW1 to CW3 had gone near the house of the accused no.1 for the purpose of executing the arrest warrant issued against him in Ex.P.No.41 of 2008, accused no. 2-Mohan and five others assaulted him. Subsequently, the judgment debtor accused no.1 telephoned to his son Thejas and assaulted him. Thejas allegedly assaulted him with his hands. He has stated that CW.4 has recorded the incident in question in his mobile. CW1

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

is a retired bailiff and CW2 and CW3 are said to be his colleagues who had gone along with him to execute the nonbailable warrant issued in Ex.P.No.41 of 2008. CW2 and CW3 are yet to be examined before the Trial court. CW4 has allegedly recorded the incident in question in his mobile. CW4 is also not examined before the Trial Court till date and the video recording in his mobile phone would be the best piece of evidence to proceed against petitioner herein.

¶38

The law regarding consideration of an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HARDEEP SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - (2014) 3 SCC 92 . Merely for the reason that some material has come on record, during the course of examination-in-chief of CW1, the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C,. The test to determine is whether such evidence if remains uncontroverted would be sufficient to convict the accused.

¶39

The material on record would go to show that PW1 has stated that initially accused no.2 and five others have

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

assaulted him. No application is filed by the prosecution to summon the other five persons who were along with accused no.2 - Mohan when initially CW1 was assaulted on the alleged date of incident. Further, deposition of CW2 to CW4 are yet to be recorded by the Trial Court. CW2 and CW3 are the other two alleged injured witnesses and CW4 is the decree holder, who is not only an alleged eye witness in the present case but allegedly has also recorded the incident in question in his mobile phone and handed over the same to the police. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that Trial Court was not justified in allowing the application solely based on the stray statement made by PW1. The Trial Court ought to have recorded the evidence of CW2 to CW4 and thereafter should have proceeded to consider the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order.

¶44

Accordingly the following:-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Criminal revision petition is allowed.

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The impugned order dated order dated 09.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.908 of 2021 by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Kolar is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court to consider the application afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶50

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶51

NMS

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Tejash v. State by Kolar Town Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejash v. State by Kolar Town Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavan Vs State by

Shri Satya Narayan Tulysan Vs M/S Krishna Enterprises

M/S Sarvana Alloy Steels P Ltd. Vs M/S Xindia Steels Limited

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Govindaraju

State by Sarguru Police Station Vs Devendra Kumar Soni

T B Venkataswamy Vs H M Chandrashekharaiah