- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201205 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200813 OF 2023 IN CRL.P.NO.201205/2024: BETWEEN: 1. SHRI KIRANKUMAR S/O BHIMRAO YERGOL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: ARTISAN MECHANIC DEPOT NO.4, NEKRTC, KALABURAGI-585103. 2. SHRI MANOJ S/O BASAVARAJ NAIKODI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: APPRENTICE DEPOT NO.4, NEKRTC, KALABURAGI-585103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/O BY STATION BAZAR POLICE STATION, GULBARGA, NOW KALBURGI, REPRESENTED BY, ADDITIONAL SPEICAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 2. SHRI DEVRAJ S/O SIDDAPPA CHOUR, AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: CONTROLLER, R/O BEHIND HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CR.NO146/2018 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 363, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC R/W SEC.3 (1) (X) THE SC AND THE ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 1989) BY THE STATION BAZAR POLICE AS WELL AS CHARGE SHEET NO.147/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN SPL.CASE SC/ST NO.71/2018 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED: 30.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN SPL. CASE SC/ST NO.71/2018. IN CRL.P. NO.200813/2023: BETWEEN: SHARANAPPA @ SHIVASHARANAPPA S/O RANAPPA DABARABAD, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JAFARABAD, POST SINDAGI, SHAHABAZAR WARD, KALABURAGI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY STATION BAZAR POLICE STATION, GULBARGA, NOW KALBURGI, REPRESENTED BY, ADDITIONAL SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH. 2. SHRI DEVRAJ S/O SIDDAPPA CHOUR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: CONTROLLER, R/O BEHIND HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH /SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN SPL.CASE SC/ST NO. 71 OF 2018. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The petitioners are the proposed accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the order dated 30.03.2025, passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case (SC/ST) No.71/2018, wherein the Trial Court passed an order on an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 2. Factual matrix of the case are as under: It is the case of the prosecution that, on 26.09.2018, when the complainant had been to NEKRTC-I at about 01- 45 p.m. to bring the order, which was passed on 27.09.2018 and to submit an affidavit. It is stated that accused No.1 abused the complainant in a filthy language by taking the caste name and he further stated that he would dismiss him and his Union Secretary Chandrakant. The officials, who were present at that time have pacified - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 the quarrel. However, in the meantime, accused No.1 called his son, who was working in Depot No.4 and his grandson. After they came to the spot, they took the complainant outside the office and also again they took him in their white car and went to their house. There, all the persons have assaulted him. Therefore, he lodged a complaint. The respondent/police have registered a case in Crime No.146/2018 against the petitioners and 23 others. The police after conducting the investigation, opined that the petitioners were not involved in any incident as stated in the complaint. Therefore, they left them while filing the charge-sheet. 3. The evidence of P.W.1 was held on 13.10.2021. In the examination-in-chief, P.W.1 stated the name of another three persons. However, those three persons were left out in the charge sheet. Hence, an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed. The said application has been allowed and directed the authority to issue summons - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 to the petitioners. Hence, they are seeking to quash the proceedings. 4. Heard Sri Huleppa Heroor, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Sri B.C.Jaka, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged incident had taken place at Depot-I, whereas the petitioners were working at the distance of 1 kilometer away from the place of the incident. Even though, the allegations are made against the petitioners that they had kidnapped the complainant and assaulted him, the ingredients of the said provisions are not attracted on the given set of facts and circumstances. 6. It is further submitted that merely because P.W.1 stated in the evidence that these petitioners have assaulted the complainant, that itself is not sufficient to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 array them as proposed accused in the case. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of P.W.1, opined that there are materials to issue summons to the accused which is contrary to the material on record. 7. It is further submitted that since the petitioners have been implicated and arrayed as proposed accused in this case, the said order is perverse and illegal. Therefore, the same has to be quashed. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petitions. 8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the said submissions and he further submitted that P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief mentioned the over-act of the petitioners. Merely because, in the charge sheet, the petitioners have been left out, that may not be the ground to discard them. 9. It is further submitted that when the evidence of P.W.1 disclosed that there is a strong and cogent reason to issue summons to the persons making them as - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 the additional accused, the Court has liberty to allow the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The findings of the Trial Court in passing an order appears to be appropriate and proper. There is no infirmity in the order. Therefore, it is not appropriate to allow the petitions. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petitions. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the order passed by the Trial Court in allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Rathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2023) 6 SCC 702. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph No.13 as under: 13. If the evidence already on record produced by the prosecution is considered on the touchstone of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh & Ors. case (supra), it does not go beyond suspicion. There is no - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 eyewitness to the occurrence. All what has been stated by PW2 (brother of the deceased) is that the deceased who was working with the appellant as Manager though claimed to be a partner by the complainant, that there was some dispute regarding money between the appellant and the deceased. Rajesh Sharma whose statement was got recorded by police under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. also retracted therefrom while appearing in court as PW5. He stated that it was recorded by the police under threat of involvement in some false case. He also did not raise any finger towards the appellant. Rather he was the first person to visit the house of the deceased after the murder and informed the appellant to reach there. He was working as part time cook with the family of the deceased. Without any material brought on record, the widow of the deceased merely stated that she is sure that the appellant had committed murder of her husband as there was no other enemy. One of the brothers of the deceased who appeared as PW1, who was not present at the spot, did not utter a single word against the appellant.” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 11. On reading of the above said judgment, makes it clear that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants and the crucial test as, noticed, has to be applied is one which is more than that prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge, however, short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. 12. Having considered the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now it is relevant to refer the findings of the Trial Court in allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court while considering the application opined that, the evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to bring the petitioners as accused. The said opinion of the Trial Court appears to be not proper for the reason that, this Court vide its order dated 05.12.2018, passed in Criminal Petition No.201126/2018, quashed the FIR, which was filed against Sharanappa/petitioner in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 Criminal Petition No.200813/2023, who is arrayed as one of the proposed accused. When this Court opined that there are no grounds to proceed against the said Sharanappa, in the absence of independent witnesses about the alleged incident, it would not be safe to come to the conclusion that the petitioners have to face the trial. Moreover, other two petitioners in Criminal Petition No.201205/2024 are concerned, except the evidence of P.W.1, none of the witnesses have stated about their presence either in the statements made before the respondent/police or in the complainant and the charge- sheet. 13. Merely on the basis of the improvement made in the evidence of P.W.1, itself is sufficient to record the conviction, even if the proposed petitioners faced the Trial. Such being the fact, allowing the application and making them as proposed accused appears to be unreasonable and erroneous. It is needless to say that based on the improvement made in the evidence of P.W.1 in recording - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 the conviction would be bleak and the said order is improper and erroneous. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. 14. Hence, I proceed to pas the following ORDER (i) The petitions are allowed. (ii) The FIR in Crime No.146/2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 363, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, by the Station Bazar Police Station, as well as the Charge-sheet No.147/2018, pending on the fie of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Spl. Case SC/ST No.71/2018 and also the order dated 30.03.2022, passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Spl. Case SC/ST No.71/2018 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2590 CRL.P No. 201205 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 200813 of 2023 insofar as the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.201205/2024 is concerned, are quashed. (iii) The order dated 30.03.2022, passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Spl. Case SC/ST No.71/2018 insofar as the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.200813/2023 is set aside. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1