- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 199 OF 2024 BETWEEN: TEJASH S/O V. NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT HOUSING BOARD COLONY KOLAR - 563 101, PERMANENT ADDRESS BEGLLI, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KOLAR - 563 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VINOD N, ADV., FOR SRI SUNIL S NARAYAN, ADV.) AND: STATE BY KOLAR TOWN PS - 563 101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.06.2023 (ANNEXURE C) PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM KOLAR IN C.C.NO.908/2021 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court in this Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 09.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.908 of 2021 by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Kolar allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Accused nos.1 and 2 were charge sheeted by Kolar Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 332, 504 & 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. In the said proceedings, prosecution had filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, to summon the petitioner herein for the purpose of standing trial for the charge sheeted offences. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide the order impugned and aggrieved by the same, the proposed accused no.3 is before this Court in this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that solely based on the stray statement made by PW1, Trial Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024 was not justified in allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. CW2 and CW3 are the other two alleged injured witnesses in the present case and CW4 is the alleged eye witness. He submits that according to the prosecution the incident in question was videographed and the video recording of the incident is very much available. Since petitioner was not found in the video, the police have not filed a charge sheet against him. Petitioner is a law student and for extraneous reasons, PW1 has stated against the petitioner during the course of his examination-in-chief. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition and has argued in support of the impugned order. He submits that deposition of PW1 makes out a case for the charge sheeted offences against the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. FIR in Crime No.22 of 2020 was initially registered by Kolar Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 332, 504, 506 & 149 of IPC against - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024 Narayanaswami V, his son and five others based on the first information dated 04.02.2020 submitted by Sri Narayanappa G - PW1. The police, after investigation, have filed charge sheet against accused no.1-Narayanaswami and accused no.2 B.Mohan. As per the charge sheet allegation, when the first informant along with CW.2 and CW3 had gone near the house of accused no.1 for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant, accused nos.1 and 2 allegedly assaulted CW.1 to CW3 and also criminally intimidated them. CW4 who is the decree holder is said to be the eye witness to the incident in question. 7. The first informant (CW1/PW1) during the course of his examination-in-chief, before the Trial Court has stated that on the alleged date of incident, when he along with CW1 to CW3 had gone near the house of the accused no.1 for the purpose of executing the arrest warrant issued against him in Ex.P.No.41 of 2008, accused no. 2-Mohan and five others assaulted him. Subsequently, the judgment debtor accused no.1 telephoned to his son Thejas and assaulted him. Thejas allegedly assaulted him with his hands. He has stated that CW.4 has recorded the incident in question in his mobile. CW1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024 is a retired bailiff and CW2 and CW3 are said to be his colleagues who had gone along with him to execute the non- bailable warrant issued in Ex.P.No.41 of 2008. CW2 and CW3 are yet to be examined before the Trial court. CW4 has allegedly recorded the incident in question in his mobile. CW4 is also not examined before the Trial Court till date and the video recording in his mobile phone would be the best piece of evidence to proceed against petitioner herein. 8. The law regarding consideration of an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HARDEEP SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - (2014) 3 SCC 92. Merely for the reason that some material has come on record, during the course of examination-in-chief of CW1, the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C,. The test to determine is whether such evidence if remains uncontroverted would be sufficient to convict the accused. 9. The material on record would go to show that PW1 has stated that initially accused no.2 and five others have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024 assaulted him. No application is filed by the prosecution to summon the other five persons who were along with accused no.2 - Mohan when initially CW1 was assaulted on the alleged date of incident. Further, deposition of CW2 to CW4 are yet to be recorded by the Trial Court. CW2 and CW3 are the other two alleged injured witnesses and CW4 is the decree holder, who is not only an alleged eye witness in the present case but allegedly has also recorded the incident in question in his mobile phone and handed over the same to the police. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that Trial Court was not justified in allowing the application solely based on the stray statement made by PW1. The Trial Court ought to have recorded the evidence of CW2 to CW4 and thereafter should have proceeded to consider the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order. 10. Accordingly the following:- ORDER Criminal revision petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1674 CRL.RP No. 199 of 2024 The impugned order dated order dated 09.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.908 of 2021 by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Kolar is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court to consider the application afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35