- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100068 OF 2018 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BABUSAHEB BARMGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR GOMTESH VIDYAPEETH, BELAGAVI. 2. PARISH TAVANAPPA PATIL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. H.NO.123/B, HOSUR MATH GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI. 3. HANMANT YALLAPPA AADIN AGED ABUT 24 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. MASTMARDI, NOW MARUTI MANDIR, PIPELINE ROAD, BELAGAVI. 4. RAFIQ HUSAINSAB RAMAPUR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. SEPERVISOR, R/O. H.NO.3935, HUSAIN MANZIL, KALI AMBRAI, BELAGAVI. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.02 11:19:01 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018 5. SUDHIR MAHAVEER UPADHYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AT B.T. PATIL COMPANY, R/O. H.NO.361, HALAGA BASTI GALLI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH TILAKWADI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HGIH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2018 PASSED BY XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 177 OF 2017 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME; CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2015 PASSED BY JMFC IV COURT, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 580 OF 2013. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Aravind, D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavaraa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused persons in C.C.No.580/2013 who are facing trial before the learned JMFC IV Court, Belagavi for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). In respect of Crime No.91/2013, presence of the accused persons was secured. An application came to be filed by accused No.1 under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’). 3. Learned trial Judge not noticing the intent and object of Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., allowed the said application and closed the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.580/2013. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial Magistrate, State filed a revision petition before the District Judge in Crl.RP.No.177/2017. 5. Notice of the revision petition was issued and the accused persons appeared before the Court and opposed the ground of revision petition. 6. Learned Judge in the revisional Court, taking into consideration the intent and object of the accused raised necessary points and held that there were no sufficient grounds for stopping of the proceedings under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. and the set aside the order of the trial Magistrate following dictum of the law enunciated in State of Karnataka Vs. Durgappa1 and allowed the revision petition and remitted the matter for trial before the trial Magistrate. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners are before this Court. 8. Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the order of the 1 1975 Crl.L.J. 749 (Karnataka) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018 revisional Court is not sustainable in law in view of the authoritative pronouncement this Court in Crl.P.No.5934/2009. 9. He further contended that the material on record did not warrant continuation of the criminal proceedings and learned trial Magistrate exercising the powers under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., was thus justified and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State contended that the learned trial Magistrate wrongly stopped the proceedings by exercising the powers under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. inasmuch as no witnesses were examined nor charges were framed. 11. It is his further submission that stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. is a power vested in the Magistrate which is be exercised very rarely that too, in order to serve the ends of justice in the given case where there is total lack participation by the prosecution. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018 12. Therefore, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, submits that order of the learned Judge in the revisional Court perfectly justified in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is found from the complaint averments that on 15.05.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., accused persons said to have demolished the compound wall and damaged the barbed wire fencing that was surrounded to K.L.S Campus situated at Sy.No.58 and 61 within the limits of Tilakwadi Police Station Belagavi. The cost of damage was estimated in sum of Rs.20,000/-. The said damage is caused, despite there was order of an protection granted by this Court in the civil proceedings pending between the parties. 14. Police after registering the case in Crime No.91/2013, investigated the matter thoroughly and filed the charge sheet. Cognizance of the offences alleged - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018 against the petitioners were taken by the learned trial Magistrate and they were summoned before the trial Court. 15. It is at that juncture, accused No.1 filed the application under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C.. 16. For ready reference under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. is culled out hereunder: “Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)-Power to stop proceedings in certain cases- In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reason to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of the discharge”. 17. On careful reading of the above provision, it is crystal clear that the trial Magistrate expected to exercise the power under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., by recording - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018 sufficient reason for stoppage of proceedings or after principal witnesses have been examined before the Court. 18. In the case on hand, since the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC, has been alleged, Magistrate was required to frame charges and thereafter, proceeded with the case. 19. Without resorting to the same exercising the power under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., has thus resulting in injustice which has been cured by learned Judge in the First Appellate Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 20. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court has dealt with the principles of law enunciated in Durgappa’s case referred to supra, wherein the Co-ordinate the Bench of this Court has observed that power under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., of stopping further proceedings should be exercised reasonably and judiciously only under special and compelling circumstances. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018 21. In the impugned order what is the special and compelling circumstances existed in the case on hand is not even spelt out by the learned trial Magistrate. Therefore, the order under revisional Court needs no interference. 22. Further, reasons assigned in the order of learned trial Magistrate does not contain as to what is the miscarriage of justice that would have been caused by continuing the criminal case, which is yet another factor to be taken into consideration while exercising the power vested in the trial Magistrate under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. Further, releasing of the accused by stoppage of the proceedings would amount to discharge. 23. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to set aside the well reasoned order of the learned judge in the revisional Court which is impugned in this revision petition. 24. Accordingly, the following order is passed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5675 CRL.RP No. 100068 of 2018 ORDER The Criminal revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA/LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 36