- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 272 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O K R NAYAK AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS No. 52, 5TH CROSS, VINOBHA COLONY AVALAHALLI, BDA PARK BANGALORE - 560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRAVAN G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUJATHA W/O LATE LOKESH AGED MAJOR BEHIND TO WATER TANK DR B R AMBEDKAR NAGAR KABBALAMAPALYA KUMBALGODU BANGALORE – 560 060. 2. BHAGYA AGED MAJOR BESIDES TO WATER TANK DR B R AMBEDKAR NAGAR KABBALAMAPALYA KUMBALGODU BANGALORE – 560 060. 3. BALAIAH S/O DASAIAH Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 AGED MAJOR No. 57, SUNCITY ROAD ARUNDHATI NAGAR HOYSALA VRUTHI KENGERI POST BENGALORE – 560 060. 4. RAGHU AGED MAJOR BESIDES TO WATER TANK DR B R AMBEDKAR NAGAR KABBALAMAPALYA KUMBALGODU BANGALORE – 560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AKKIMANJUNATH GOWDA K, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 AND R4, R2 EXPIRED, NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R5) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.01.2023 IN SPL.C.No.4/2014 BEFORE THE COURT OF II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.01.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.04/2014 by the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru where under the application filed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. seeking adding of respondent Nos.1 to 4 as additional accused has been rejected. The petitioner was first informant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Respondent No.2 is reported dead. 3. On the first information of petitioner dated 27.03.2013, a case came to be registered in Cr.No.77/2013 of Kumbalagodu Police Station against one Lakshmi, w/o Malleshappa and other three women for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 34, 504, 323, 354 of IPC. After investigation charge sheet has been filed against ten accused persons for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. On the basis of the said charge sheet case came to be registered in Spl.C.No.04/2014 pending on the file of the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The first informant has been examined as PW.1. After - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 examination of PW.1, learned Public Prosecutor filed application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. praying to add respondent Nos.1 to 4 as additional accused. On the said application notice has been issued to respondent Nos.1 to 4 / proposed accused and they appeared through the counsel and filed statement of objections to the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge after hearing arguments on the application on both the sides has passed the impugned order dated 24.01.2023 where under the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected. The said order has been challenged in the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the first informant who has been examined as PW.1 has deposed regarding the complicity of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Considering the said aspect there is prima-facie case against respondent Nos.1 to 4. He placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manjeet - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 Singh v. State of Haryana and others (AIR 2021 SC 4274) would contend that the evidence of PW.1 discloses the complicity of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in commission of offence. He refers to some of the paras in the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92. He further submits that PW.1 has specifically stated the facts in paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 21 of her chief-examination which make out a case for addition of respondent Nos.1 to 4 as additional accused. Without considering the said aspect, the learned Special Judge has erred in rejecting the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. With this he prayed to allow the revision petition and consequently allow the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that for adding additional accused and for considering the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. He submits that the evidence of PW.1 is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 cogent evidence. PW.1 in the first information filed by her has not stated any of the alleged overt acts which she had stated in her evidence. Even there is delay in filing the first information. It is submitted that considering all these aspects, the learned Special Judge has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the impugned order. With this he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record. 7. The alleged incident has taken place on 24.03.2013 at 6.30 p.m. The first information has been filed by the petitioner at 6.30 p.m. on 27.03.2013. There is a gap of two days between the date of incident and filing of first information. The petitioner who has filed the first information has not stated any of the overt acts of respondent Nos.1 to 4 to attract any of the offences. The overt acts which she has stated in her evidence when she - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 was examined as PW.1 is not stated in her first information. The presence of respondent No.1 – Sujatha has been stated in the first information stating that she made a phone call and asked the first informant to come and settle the matter. The evidence of PW.1 which has been placed reliance while filing application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. are para 4, 5, 8 and 21 which reads thus: 4. £ÀªÀÄÆäj£À ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÁUÀå J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. ¥sÉÆä£À°è ¨sÁUÀå, vÁ£ÀÄ MAzÀƪÀgÉ ®PÀë gÀÆ PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨Á®AiÀÄågÀªÀjAzÀ Rjâ ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É FUÀ ¨Á®AiÀÄå ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁ° ªÀiÁqÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ FUÀ vÁ£ÀÄ J°èUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¨sÁUÀå½UÉ, §gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É «ZÁj¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉÝ. 5. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢:24.03.2013gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÀ¨Áâ¼ÀªÀÄä£À¥Á¼ÀåPÉÌ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 06.30gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀÄeÁvÀgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ£ÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr §A¢zÁÝ¼É §¤ß JAzÀÄ PÀgÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ K£Á¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÉÝ. DUÀ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ, £À£ÀUÉ §AiÀÄå®Ä ±ÀÄgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀݼÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà wAzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ ºÉùUÉ ªÀiÁrUÉ ºÉÆÃV¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄÄAqÉ, £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀA¢gÀÄ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆAqÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÄ, CªÀgÀÄ KPÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÊ¢zÀÝgÉÆà £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÁÛUÀ°®è. CµÀÖgÀ°è, ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr PÀgɹzÀݼÀÄ. J®ègÀÆ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 1£Éà DgÉÆæ §A¢zÀÝ£ÀÄ. 8. 6£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ gÁWÀªÀ, 3£Éà DgÉÆæ ²æäªÁ¸À, 4£Éà DgÉÆæ «±Àé £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä JqÀªÀÄmÉÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÆuÉÚAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ¥ÀæZÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉÆqÉzÀgÀÄ. ¯ÉÃr¸ï ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ZÀ¥Àà°, ¥ÉÆgÀPÉ, PÀ°è¤AzÀ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÝgÀÄ. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 21. £Á£ÀÄ MmÁÖV 14 d£ÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ, ¨Á®AiÀÄå, ¨sÁUÀå, gÁWÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©nÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¨Á®AiÀÄå ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ vÀ£Àß PÀ«ÄõÀ£ï ºÉÆÃVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß JwÛPÀnÖ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr¹zÁÝ£É. ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr PÀgɹ J®ègÀ£ÀÄß PÀgɹ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr¹zÁݼÉ. ¨sÁUÀå DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ ¸Áxï PÉÆnÖzÁݼÉ. gÁWÀÄ J¯Áè DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ zÉÆuÉÚ PÉÆlÄÖ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉýzÁÝ£É. 8. In para 4, PW.1 has deposed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 made a phone call to her and respondent No.2 told her over phone that she had purchased the house for Rs.1,50,000/- from respondent No.3 – Balaiah and now the said Balaiah is asking her to vacate the house and where she has to go. 9. In para 5, PW.1 has stated that at about 6.30 p.m. on 24.03.2013 she went near the house of respondent No.1 – Sujatha and at that time, respondent No.1 – Sujatha made a phone call to others and told to come here and when she asked, Sujatha started abusing her and at that time respondent No.1 – Sujatha made a phone call and called others and accused No.1 came there. 10. In para 8, PW.1 has stated that husband of accused No.6 i.e. respondent No.4 – Raghava, accused - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 No.3 and accused No.4 gave club and abetted others to assault her and women assaulted her with chappal, broomstick and stone. 11. In para 21, PW.1 has stated that even though she has filed complaint against 14 persons to the police, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have been left out and respondent No.2 – Balaiah who did not get commission is supporting accused persons to make galata and respondent No.1 – Sujata has called others who made galata and respondent No.2 – Bhagya supported other accused. Respondent No.4 gave club to other accused and told to assault her. 12. Learned Sessions Judge considered the above evidence held that the said evidence is vague and omnibus. Even though club and stones are stated to have been used to assault PW.1, but the wound certificate does not disclose that she has sustained any injuries. Considering the same, the learned Sessions Judge has held that evidence of PW.1 does not make out prima-facie case and the application filed by the prosecution is vague. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 13. In the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus: 94. In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094, a four-Judge Bench of this Court was concerned with the meaning of the word ‘appear’. The court held that the appropriate meaning of the word ‘appears’ is ‘seems’. It imports a lesser degree of probability than proof. In Ram Singh & Ors. v. Ram Niwas & Anr., (2009) 14 SCC 25, a two-Judge Bench of this Court was again required to examine the importance of the word ‘appear’ as appearing in the Section. The Court held that for the fulfillment of the condition that it appears to the court that a person had committed an offence, the court must satisfy itself about the existence of an exceptional circumstance enabling it to exercise an extraordinary jurisdiction. What is, therefore, necessary for the court is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, may lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as an accused in the case. 95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 Cr.P.C., though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. 105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court while referring to the above said paragraphs in Shankar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2024 INSC 366) has observed as under: “16. The degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is well settled after the above-referred decision. The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned. As is evident from the above-referred decision, the degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.” 14. To exercise power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. the evidence before the trial Court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned. The degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is much stricter, considering that it - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27726 CRL.RP No. 272 of 2024 is a discretionary and an extra ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, the power can be exercised. The same requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. 15. Considering the above aspect and evidence of PW.1, the evidence of PW.1 is not strong and reliable. The evidence of PW.1 is vague and omnibus. Considering the said aspect the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. There is no merit in the revision petition. Hence, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. 16. Any observation made in this order does not come in the way in considering the application filed by the petitioner under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 Ct.sm