- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14366 CRL.P No. 1417 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1417 OF 2019 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND: ABDUL HAMEED S/O. KHADER BYARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-27, MADAKA HOUSE, KODAMANNU VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574211 …RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.103/2018, DATED 19.11.2018 AND THE ORDER Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14366 CRL.P No. 1417 of 2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M, MANGALURU, D.K., IN C.C.NO.214/2016, DATED 24.07.2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The State has challenged an order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in Criminal Revision petition 103/2018 and the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru, in C.C. No.214/2016. 2. The petitioner had investigated an offence in Crime No.212/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Rule 16(j) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the KMV Rules’) read with Section 177 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the IMV Act’) following which, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 511 of IPC and Section 177 of the IMV Act (stated as the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14366 CRL.P No. 1417 of 2019 Rule 16(j) of the KMV Rules read with Section 177 of the IMV Act in the order of the Trial Court dated 07.06.2016 and the impugned order dated 19.11.2018) against the respondent – accused before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru. 3. The Trial Court in terms of the order dated 07.06.2016, took cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC following which C.C No.214/2016 was registered against the accused. Later, an application was filed under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) by the State for alteration of charge and to frame a charge under Sections 341 and 342 of IPC. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court in terms of an order dated 24.07.2018. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 24.07.2018, the State filed Criminal Revision Petition No.103/2018, which was also dismissed in terms of an order dated 19.11.2018. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the State has filed the present petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14366 CRL.P No. 1417 of 2019 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the Trial Court failed to consider the entire charge sheet and the enclosures with the charge sheet which disclosed the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 341 and 342 of IPC. He contends that the complainant herself had disclosed that she was wrongfully restrained by the accused. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court which is upheld by the Revisional Court deserves to be set aside. 6. Though notice to the respondent was held sufficient vide order dated 12.01.2023, he is absent. 7. It appears from the charge sheet that that the accused is an autorickshaw driver and that the complainant had travelled in the said autorickshaw and when she reached her destination, she paid a sum of Rs.100/- to the accused. The accused who was supposed to return a sum of Rs.42/- did not do so and tried to run away. Therefore, CW2 jumped into the autorickshaw and hung on to an iron rod fixed above the seat. The accused without stopping the autorickshaw, sped away with CW2. Thereafter, CW2 caught hold of the driver by his hair - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14366 CRL.P No. 1417 of 2019 and thereafter, the accused returned a sum of Rs.30/- and sped away. 8. A perusal of the charge sheet would not show that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 342 of IPC. It may be that there was material for an offence under Section 363 of IPC and hence, the order passed by the Trial Court taking cognizance of an offence under Section 363 of IPC against the accused and the order framing charge under Section 363 of IPC by the Trial Court is justified. The Revisional Court was also justified in holding that based on the information furnished by CW.1 to the Police, an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC was alone made out against the accused and not an offence under Sections 341 and 342 of IPC. Hence, there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30