Kiran Kumar vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is before this Court in the following background:

"It transpires that one Ramalakshmamma, W/o Anjaneya Reddy had lodged a complaint with the Chintamani Rural Police on 2.11.2009 to the effect that her husband Anjaneya Reddy who was a real estate agent, had arranged a sale transaction in respect of certain land belonging to one Nanjegowda of Kalanayakanahalli. The purchaser was one Basappa Chowdary, the father of the petitioner. There was a dispute relating to the said land and therefore, the sale transaction could not be completed and the sale deed could not be registered in favour of Basappa Chowdary, the father of the petitioner. It is stated that on 31.10.2009, Anjaneya Reddy along with one Subba Reddy had gone to Bangalore in a car and since he did not return home and when the complainant was awaiting his return, one Sridhar, car driver, had informed her that on 31.10.2009 he had witnessed 8 to 10 people having blocked the car in which her husband was travelling, at about 11 p.m. and that they had taken Anjaneya Reddy forcibly in another car. On the basis of a complaint, on the above basis, the Chintamani Rural police are said to have registered a case in Crime No. 321/2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 341, 343, 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 having been recorded by the Magistrate, Chikkaballapur. The Magistrate had found that an offence punishable under Section 364(A) was also present and had committed the matter to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, charges were framed afresh by the Sessions Court and PW-1 to PW-4 were examined and were cross-examined. It is during this subsequent stage that an application is said to have been filed by the prosecution on 8.9.2014 seeking permission to proceed against the petitioner as one of the accused. Though the application was said to have been resisted by the accused, however, the Sessions Court having allowed the application and directing summons being issued to the present petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court."

The learned counsel Shri G.B. Shastry appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is certainly the son of one of the accused namely, accused No. 1. However, he has no connection with the alleged transaction or the incident which is the subject matter of the complaint. He is a software engineer by profession and he has been unfairly and unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings merely on the nebulous statement made by one of the witnesses. The petitioner, now being made an accused and being summoned and being called to participate in the proceedings, has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and seeks the intervention of this Court to set aside the proceedings initiated against the present petitioner.

However, after having considered the submissions and the circumstances of the case, it is to be noticed that under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is provided that the Court may in the course of enquiry or trial of an offence, if it opines that from the evidence, any person not being an accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. This being the power conferred to the Court, it cannot be said that the impugned order was without the power of the Court. The opinion formed is not conclusive and does not have the effect of convicting the person now summoned, namely the present petitioner. Therefore, at a stage where the trial has only now commenced before the Trial Court and the Court having opined that the petitioner may be one of the accused involved, would be a situation where this Court would not be in a position to interfere unless it has resulted in any injustice to the petitioner. Since the law which is provided for such a situation and which is well within the discretion of the Trial Court to exercise, there is no warrant to interfere. The incidental circumstances that has caused embarrassment, inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner, would not be a ground for this Court to interfere. If otherwise there is a semblance of a connection established, in the petitioner also being involved along with his father, who is said to be accused No. 1, which is yet to be found at the trial. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference. The petition is rejected accordingly.

In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A. 1/14 filed seeking for grant of stay does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed.