Shivaraju vs The State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan

Heard the learned Counsel Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi for the petitioner and Sri. Anand K. Navalgimath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State in respect of the challenge to the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed by the petitioner u/s 177 of the Cr.P.C.

The brief facts are that the petitioner who is accused in the case registered by the Bagalkot police in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 364(4) of the IPC has filed an application before the trial Court u/s 177 of the Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of the case to the Court at Raichur instead of the case being tried at: Bagalkot. That application is being dismissed by the trial Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire episode started at Raichur and according to the prosecution, the petitioner is said to have taken the girl Sujatha with him to Bagalkot and at Bagalkot, the petitioner is said to have asked the brother of Sujatha namely. Santosh to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- and then told Santosh that the car is parked at Hubli Railway Station and there afterwards, nothing was heard about the girl. Later on, following the complaint lodged by the mother of Sujatha, police took up investigation and filed charge sheet.

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has kidnapped the complainant''s daughter and took her to various placed like Delhi, Nainital, Haldwani etc and following the complaint lodged by the mother of the girl, charge sheet was also submitted by the police to the Court at Bagalkot.

The petitioner''s Counsel submitted that there are about 15 witnesses for the prosecution and out of them ten were from Raichur and therefore, the case-requires to be transferred to Raichur for being tried and the trial Court could not have dismissed the application filed u/s 177 of Cr.P.C. It is contended that the entire incident had its root at Raichur.

On the other hand, submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader is that, the trial Court has considered all the aspects of the matter and it is found that the complaint was lodged at Bagalkot, accused took up the girl away from Bagalkot and also demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- from Santosh and after the investigation, police have filed a charge sheet alleging that the accused had Kidnapped the girl and took her to various places like Delhi, Nainital etc. The trial Court also took note of Section 178 of Cr.P.C., which permits the case being tried at any one of the places where several acts are done. As such, the impugned order calls for no interference.

Having thus heard both sides and after going through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the act of kidnapping, according to the prosecution having taken place only at Bagalkot, the accused is said to have demanded ransom of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Santosh at Bagalkot and complaint also being registered at Bagalkot, in my view, the trial Court committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

The petition therefore, lacks merits and is dismissed.