CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 11 KAR CK 0270

Sri Srinivasa and Others vs The State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 8 November 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.V. Pinto, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 5667 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 364 words

B.V. Pinto

1.

This petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 3.10.2011 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in Spl. Case No 48/2004.

2.

It is seen from the order passed that, earlier, charge sheet was filed for the offences u/s 306 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act against the petitioners. Subsequently, after recording of evidence, the prosecution filed an application for converting the offence u/s 306 into one u/s 302 of the I.P.C., which application came to be allowed. A charge u/s 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. was framed. After conclusion of the trial, the prosecution filed another application u/s 216 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to add the offence u/s 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act. The said application also came to be allowed.

3.

Heard Shri R.S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4.

It is seen that the incident is dated 5.10.2002 and at the time "of filing of the charge sheet itself, the prosecution was aware that the complainant was a member of the schedule caste and an offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (PO) Act was also included at the time of filing of the charge sheet. The application, presently filed on 29.9.2011 by the prosecution, after a lapse of nine years from the date of the incident, is definitely an afterthought and intended to harass the petitioners. The application does not contain cogent reasons as to why an additional charge has to be framed. Under the circumstances, the order dated 3.10.2011 is an abuse of the process of the court and the same is hereby set aside.

5.

Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is recorded and completed and 313 statement has been recorded. In view of the same, the trial court is directed to dispose of the matter within two months from today subject to the cooperation by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.

The petition stands allowed accordingly.