Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 629 (KAR)

Prasanna T. s. And Others v. State Of Karnataka

2020-03-04

K.S.MUDAGAL

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. 'Whether the impugned order of the trial Court deferring the application of the petitioner for his discharge and framing the charges pending such application amounts to failure of justice?' is the question involved in this case. 2. Petitioner was accused No.4 in S.C.65/2019 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. The petitioner and six others were facing trial in said case for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 146, 148, 341, 307, 302, 120B, 201, 149 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Maddur Police in Crime No.444/2018. 3. It was alleged that accused Nos.1, 2, 6, 7 and the present petitioner (accused No.4) and one Ramalingaiah and others were facing trial in S.C.No.82/2017 arising out of Crime No.582/2016 of Maddur Police Station on the charge of committing murder of Muthuraj @ Koti and Nandesh. It was further alleged that the bail granted by the High Court to accused Ramalingaiah in that case was cancelled and he died due to heart attack. It was alleged that the accused were labouring under the impression that victim was the cause for cancellation of the bail and he supported the complaint of that case. Therefore, the accused conspired to commit his murder and ultimately committed his murder on 24.12.2018. 4. On committal of the case the matter was pending in S.C.No.65/2019 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya for trial. On 16.12.2019, the case was posted to here before charge. On that day, petitioner filed application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C seeking his discharge. The trial Court by the impugned order held that as other accused are in judicial custody since long time, the application of the petitioner cannot be considered and proceeded to frame charges and adjourned the matter for fixing the date of trial. 5. Petitioner has challenged the said order in this case on the ground that non-consideration of his application for discharge and subjecting him to trial without consideration of that application leads to failure of justice. 6. It is material to note that on 03.10.2019, the trial Court itself posted the matter to 17.10.2019 to here on bail application of accused No.2 and to here before charge. Thereafter, the trial Court only heard the bail application of accused No.2 and vide order dated 21.10.2019 rejected the same. 6. It is material to note that on 03.10.2019, the trial Court itself posted the matter to 17.10.2019 to here on bail application of accused No.2 and to here before charge. Thereafter, the trial Court only heard the bail application of accused No.2 and vide order dated 21.10.2019 rejected the same. On 21.10.2019, the trial Court posted the matter to 31.10.2019 to here before charge. Thus the matter was being adjourned from time to time upto 16.12.2019 to hear before charge also. 7. However, on 16.12.2019 overlooking the earlier proceedings, the learned trial judge records that the matter is posted for framing charge which is incorrect. Under Section 227 of Cr.P.C the accused has a right of hearing before framing of the charge regarding framing of the charges. By the impugned order, he was deprived of the said statutory right. Keeping the said application pending the trial Court proceeded to frame the charge which is glaringly unjustifiable and illegal. By such order the Trial Court failed to discharge its mandatory function. Therefore, the impugned order has caused apparent failure of justice to the petitioner. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order. However, having regard to the fact that the other accused were in judicial custody and the order sheet of the trial Court discloses that the matter was prolonged due to filing several bail applications, it is necessary to put the petitioner to terms. 9. The petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Trial Court dated 16.12.2019 framing of the charges against the accused and posting the matter for trial pending consideration of the application of the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C is hereby quashed. 10. The trial Court shall hear both side on the application of the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C and then proceed to the next stage. The petitioner and other accused shall co-operate in the proceedings without any procrastination. 11. Both prosecution and accused shall submit their arguments on the application of the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on 26.03.2020. The trial court shall hear the said application and dispose of the same within one week thereafter. Registry shall communicate this order to the trial court.