- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5744 CRL.RP No. 100307 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100307 OF 2017 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) AND: ASHOK S/O. HANUMANTAPPA MUKKANNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NAGASHETTIKOPPA, KONDOJI CHAAL, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN C.C.NO.93 OF 2012 DATED 12.01.2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, DHARWAD AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN C.C.NO.93 OF 2012 DATED 12.01.2017 U/S. 198, 175, 204, 420 OF IPC AND REMAND THE MATTER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.03 10:52:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5744 CRL.RP No. 100307 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for revision petitioner and Sri A.M. Gundawade, learned counsel for respondent. 2. State is in revision challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate in C.C. No.93/2012, (old C.C. No.475/2007) discharging the respondent-accused by allowing the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A case was registered against the respondent on the ground that he has obtained fraudulent caste certificate as “Tokara Koli” (Scheduled Tribe), though accused belonged to “Kurubar” caste. Based on the said fraudulent certificate, he got appointed as Kalasi in the Railway Department in Hubballi under Scheduled Tribe quota. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5744 CRL.RP No. 100307 of 2017 4. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 198, 175, 204 and 420 of IPC. Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 5. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, proceeded to examine five witnesses as PW-1 to PW-5 and eight documents were placed on record. 6. When the matter was posted for further evidence, accused said to have filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. along with Government Order No.SWD 173 SAD 1993, Bengaluru dated 11.03.2002. 7. Placing the said notification on record, learned Trial Judge allowed the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and discharged the accused. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, State is in revision. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5744 CRL.RP No. 100307 of 2017 9. Reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, Sri Praveen Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for revision petitioner contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Judge in allowing the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision. 10. He would further contend that once the evidence has commenced, question of discharge would not arise. If at all, if any remedy was available to the respondent, it was only to seek for quashing of pending proceedings based on the Government Order referred to supra. Not adopting such a procedure and filing an application after the trial has commenced which was allowed by the Trial Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision. 11. Per contra, Sri Abhinandan Gundawade, learned counsel for respondent contended that the Government Order referred to supra was clear enough that “Kurubara” - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5744 CRL.RP No. 100307 of 2017 community would also be called “Tokara Koli”. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against accused was nothing but a futile exercise, which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while considering the application seeking discharge and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 12. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, following sole point would arise for consideration : Whether the order discharging the respondent from the charges in C.C.No.93/2012 (old C.C.No.475/2007) by the learned Trial Magistrate is justified? 14. Admittedly, in the case on hand, after thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5744 CRL.RP No. 100307 of 2017 respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 198, 175, 204 and 420 of IPC. 15. According to the prosecution, though accused belongs to “Kurubara” community, he obtained a caste certificate as “Tokara Koli”, which is classified in Scheduled Tribe. 16. When the trial has commenced, five witnesses have been examined and eight documents were already placed on record, a Government Order placed on record by the accused along with an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. 17. When once the trial has commenced and witnesses have been examined, the Trial Magistrate ought not to have ventured to consider the case under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. 18. If at all if the Trial Magistrate is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused, he should - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5744 CRL.RP No. 100307 of 2017 have directed the accused to approach the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and entertaining the application after the trial has resulted in not only procedural lapses but also affects the rights of the prosecution. 19. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, point is answered in the negative. 20. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) Order dated 12.01.2017 discharging the accused from the charges in C.C.No.93/2012 is hereby set aside. (iii) Case is ordered to be proceeded in accordance with law. (iv) Respondent-accused shall appear before the Trial Court without further notice on 21.04.2025. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5744 CRL.RP No. 100307 of 2017 Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 33