B R Rudrani v. The State Of Karnataka By, Karnataka High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

CRL.P 6996 of 2015

Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)

Judges

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rathnakala

Acts

Section 242(2) Cr.P.C.
Section 242(2) of Cr.P.C.
Sections 447, 504, 323, 355, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners, who are charge sheeted for offences under Sections 447, 504, 323, 355, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, challenged an order passed by the trial court on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 242(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The prosecution alleged that the accused trespassed into the complainant's premises, verbally abused him, physically assaulted him by dragging him by his shirt collar, inflicted blows on his face, threw a chappal at the complainant, and threatened him with dire consequences.

The prosecution filed an application stating that there was a mistake in the charge sheet regarding the address of the incident, indicating 4th Cross instead of 3rd Cross as per certain documents. The prosecution produced eight documents to clarify the correct address. The trial court allowed the application, observing that the Municipality might have erred in mentioning the correct cross and noting that the cross-examination of the complainant witness (CW1) had not yet taken place.

The petitioners challenged this order, contending that the documents produced by the prosecution were not collected during investigation, and no permission under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was obtained for further investigation. They argued that allowing production of such documents at this stage was against established procedure and prejudicial to the defence.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the prosecution can produce documents after the charge sheet has been filed to correct alleged errors in the address of the place of occurrence without following the procedure under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.?
Whether the trial court's order allowing such production of documents and application filed under Section 242(2) Cr.P.C. without sound reasoning prejudices the defence?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The prosecution's application to correct the address was based on documents not collected during investigation.
No permission under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was obtained for further investigation or to produce these documents.
Allowing such documents at this stage is against established procedure and prejudices the defence.
The identity of the place of occurrence is the crucial matter, not the exact cross mentioned in the address.
The complainant was not cross-examined yet, and filing the application at this stage prejudices the defence.

Respondent's Arguments

The prosecution contended that there was a mistake in the charge sheet regarding the address of the place of occurrence.
Produced eight documents to clarify the correct address of the complainant's residence.
The trial court was requested to allow the application to rectify the mistake.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that the prosecution's failure to collect relevant documents during investigation and the absence of permission under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to carry out further investigation were procedural lapses. The court emphasized that allowing the prosecution to produce documents at this stage to fill gaps in their case was against established legal procedure. While recognizing that the precise cross number in the address was not the substantive issue—the identity of the place of occurrence was—the court found that the order passed by the trial court lacked sound reasoning and prejudiced the defence. The court also observed that the complainant had not been cross-examined and that the prosecution's application at this stage was prejudicial to the accused. Therefore, the court quashed the impugned order passed under Section 242(2) Cr.P.C.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the learned Magistrate on the application filed under Section 242(2) of Cr.P.C.

The direct effect of this decision is the setting aside of the trial court's order permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents to correct the address after the charge sheet was filed. No broader precedent was established; the ruling primarily safeguards procedural integrity and the rights of the defence by ensuring that post-charge sheet corrections comply with established legal procedures.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

B R Rudrani v. The State Of Karnataka By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^THDAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6996/2015

BETWEEN:

1. B.R.RUDRANI

W/O GANGADHARA

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

R/O SARASHWATHIPURAM, 2^NDCROSS, CHITRADURGA TALUKA AND DISTRICT - 577 555

2. GANGADHARA

S/O CHENNABASAPPA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

R/O SARASHWATHIPURAM, 2^NDCROSS, CHITRADURGA TALUKA AND DISTRICT - 577 555

3. VEERESH

S/O DR.RUDRESHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

R/O KODAVAHALLI CHITRADURGA TALUKA AND DISTRICT - 577 555

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI RAVINDRA B.DESHPANDE, ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION

CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,

BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. RAGHURAMA REDDY

S/O LAXMIKANTHAREDDY

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

R/AT JCR LAYOUT, 4^THCROSS, CHITRADURGA TQ. AND DIST. - 577 555.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 17/11/2015) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL

JUDGE, C.J.M., AND M.A.C.T. III AT CHITRADURGA IN

C.C.NO.330/2013 AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER

SECTION 242(2) CR.P.C.

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State.

2. The petitioners herein are challenging the order passed by the trial Court on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 242(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioners are charge sheeted in respect of the offence under Sections 447, 504, 323, 355, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The allegation of the prosecution is, the accused persons trespassed into premises of the complainant situated at 4^thCross, JCR extension, Chitradurga, abused him verbally, dragged him by holding his shirt collar inflicted blows on his

face and threw chappal on CW1 and also threatened him with dire consequences.

4. The prosecution filed an application before the Court below stating that due to mistake in the charge sheet, address is shown as 4^thcross, but the concerned document/tax bill register it is shown that location of the house is 3^rdcross, in fact, the complaint and his father are residing at 4^thcross. Along with complaint, 8 documents produced evincing the address of the complainant where the application was contested. Said application came to be allowed by observing that the Municipality may have committed some errors while mentioning the correct Cross and the prosecution has produced the documents to clarify the same and the cross-examination of CW1 is not done so far.

5. As such, documents to be produced by the prosecution were not collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation, neither did he take permission under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. to carry out further investigation. The production of the documents which were in the custody of the complainant can not be permitted to be produced to fill up

lapses in the case of the prosecution and it is against the established procedure. However, it is made clear that the identity of the alleged place of occurrence being crux of the matter, but not the Cross in which the property is situated. Dismissal of the application shall not have any bearing while adjudicating the case on merits. Though the complainant is not tendered for cross-examination, filing an application at this stage definitely prejudices the defence.

The order of the learned Magistrate without support of sound reasoning is bad and prejudices the case of the defence. Petition is allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 18.09.2015 passed on IA filed under Section 242(2) of Cr.P.C. is quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR

B R Rudrani v. The State Of Karnataka By

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

B R Rudrani v. The State Of Karnataka By

Comments