Writ Petition No. 859 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
1 Reserved on : 24.03.2025 Pronounced on : 04.04.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.859 OF 2025 (GM – RES) BETWEEN: SMT. MALLAVVA GOUDAR S/O LATE YOGESH GOUDAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOVANAKOPPA, DHARWAD – 580 112. (BY SRI V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR N.K., ADVOCATE) AND: THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 36, BELLARY ROAD, KGH LAYOUT, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.V.RAJU, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA A/W ... RESPONDENT 2 SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP AND SRI RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 23.12.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-82) (SPECIAL COURT EXCLUSIVELY TO DEAL WITH CRIMINAL CASES RELATED TO ELECTED FORMER AND SITTING MPs/ MLAs IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA) IN SPL.C.C.NO. 565/2021 (ANNX-C). THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 23-12-2024, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 301 of the Cr.P.C. comes to be rejected.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent/CBI. 3 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The subject petition is an offshoot of the facts that obtain in Writ Petition No.383 of 2025. Therefore, the facts obtaining therein are paraphrased to the subject petition. 3.1. The history of the case dates back to 15-06-2016 on which day a complaint comes to be registered by one Smt. Mallavva Goudar, the petitioner herein alleging offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC on the murder of her husband Yogesh Goudar, who was a member of Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad, against unknown persons. The complaint was registered before the Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against 6 persons on 09-09-2016. The concerned Court took cognizance of the offence against those 6 accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions, in terms of its order dated 14-09-2017, registers the case as S.C.No.50 of 2017 and frames charges against accused Nos. 1 to 6. 4 The trial continued for 2 years between 2017 and 2019, during which 61 witnesses were examined. 3.2. The mother and brother of the deceased prefer writ petitions before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.58183-58184 of 2017 seeking further investigation from the hands of the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’). The said writ petitions come to be dismissed on 01-03-2019. This becomes final, as the Apex Court in a challenge to the said order also dismissed the petitions. During the pendency of trial, an application comes to be filed by the brother of the deceased under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to array additional accused into the web of trial. This also comes to be dismissed. In the meanwhile, Government of Karnataka, in terms of its order dated 06-09-2019 accords sanction for conduct of further investigation at the hands of the CBI in respect of the crime in Crime No.135 of 2016. It is here the CBI enters the scene. The CBI on 24-09-2019 registers a fresh FIR in RC 17(S)/2019/CBI/ACB/BLR against accused Nos. 1 to 6 and other unknown persons for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. Accused No.1 5 prefers writ petition before this Court in Writ Petition No.51012 of 2019 seeking quashment of order dated 06-09-2019 entrusting the matter to the CBI. This Court dismissed the petition in terms of its order dated 19-11-2019. Then begins complete investigation by the CBI. 3.3. First supplemental charge sheet was filed arraigning 14 accused in all, as against 6 that were arraigned earlier. A second supplemental charge sheet was filed arraigning 3 more accused on 30-01-2021. It is here the then Minister in-charge of Dharwad District comes into the web of trial as accused No.15. Investigation did not stop. A third supplemental charge sheet was filed by the CBI arraigning 4 more accused as accused Nos. 18 to 21. In all, the trial now is against 21 accused. The Special Court takes cognizance of all the supplemental charge sheets mentioned hereinabove. The issue in the lis, at this juncture, does not concern the merit of the matter before the concerned Court. 3.4. In the proceedings, accused No.1 files an application under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C., seeking pardon and transposing him as a witness, by considering him as an approver in the case. 6 On the application, the Special Court directs the learned Magistrate to record the statement of accused No.1 who had filed the application to turn himself as an approver as obtaining under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. On receipt of such statement, the concerned Court forms that as the foundation of the order and grants pardon in terms of the order impugned. The challenge to the order granting pardon was laid in Criminal Petition No.12176 of 2024 and connected cases. This Court, in terms of its order dated 04-12-2024, sets side the order granting pardon owing to procedural aberrations and also reserved liberty to accused No.1 to file an application afresh, if he so desired and further directed that the concerned Court to conclude the trial within an outer limit of 2 months, if not earlier. 4. As observed hereinabove, the present petitioner is the wife of the deceased. She files an application under Section 301 of the Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to permit her to assist the prosecution. The concerned Court, in terms of the impugned order dated 23-12-2024, rejects the said application on the score that the petitioner has not made out a case to assist the prosecution. It is 7 challenging the said order the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri V.M. Sheelvant, would vehemently contend that the petitioner should be permitted to assist the prosecution, as she is the victim and the order rejecting the application of the petitioner runs counter to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JAGJEET SINGH v. ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU1. He would seek quashment of the order and allowing the application, thereby permitting the petitioner to assist the prosecution. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional solicitor General of India representing the respondent/CBI would defend the order on the score that the wife of the deceased has at once taken dual stand. The charge sheet papers indicate that accused No.15 had taken assistance of co-workers including the Zilla Panchayat Member of Hubballi and had committed the act. The present petitioner has now joined hands with accused No.15 and is deliberately wanting to 1 (2022) 9 SCC 321 8 assist the prosecution notwithstanding joining hands. She is now alleging that the brother of the accused is derailing the trial in favour of the accused. In that light, the learned ASGIwould submit that no fault can be found with the order rejecting the application. He seeks dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass. The fact that led to registration of crime, filing of charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet where accused No.15 is drawn in, are all a matter of record and it would not require any reiteration. The subject issue relates to an application filed by the petitioner under Section 301 of the Cr.P.C. seeking direction of the Court to permit her to assist the prosecution. The concerned Court frames the following points on the said application and renders its findings thereon: 9 “7. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused records. The points that would arise for my determination are as follows: (1) Whether applicant Smt. Mallavva Goudar has made out grounds for allowing the application filed under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.? (2) What order? 8. My findings on the above points are as hereunder: Point No.1: Point No.2: In the Negative. As per final order for the following:” The concerned Court holds the first point against the petitioner. The reasons that are rendered by the concerned Court to reject the application, as found in few of the paragraphs, are as follows: “…. …. …. “14. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the victim – defacto sufferer of a crime had no participation in the adjudicatory process and was made to sit outside the court as mute spectator. However, with the recognition that the ethos of criminal justice dispensation to prevent and punish crime, the victimology had evolved in the present situation. By referring to various authorities, it has been defined that the expression victim means that a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused persons had been charged and the expression victim includes he or her guardian or legal heir. On plain reading of the above principles the undisputed fact which emerges is that the applicant is the wife of deceased Yogesh Goudar and she can be construed as sufferer of a crime. At the same time, what is required to be appreciated is that the averments made in the application by the applicant wherein it has been submitted that he is intending to oppose the application filed under Sec.306 and 307 of Cr.P.C, by accused No.1, since he is the main assailant. In order to better 10 appreciate the same, the stands taken by the applicant Smt.Mallavva Goudar is required to be considered. As noticed from the records, one set of investigation was conducted by the State Investigation Agency which culminated in filing of the charge sheet and later on it was numbered as SC No.50/2017 and in that case, the applicant Smt.Mallavva Goudar was examined as PW1. 15. For better appreciation of the said aspects, it is required to look in to the materials wherein she has feigned her ignorance with respect to the reasons for murder and has deposed that on the basis of news paper report she had came to know that the murder had taken place due to a land dispute. During the course of cross-examination she has also feigned her ignorance with respect to criminal cases pending against her husband. More so, in para-13 of her cross examination before the learned Sessions Court at Dharwad, she has completely feigned ignorance with respect to land dispute that had taken place between accused No.1 Basavaraj Muttagi and Nagendra Todkar and Shivanand Todkar and she has admitted that there was no financial transaction between accused No.1 Basavaraj Muttagi and deceased Yogesh Goudar and there was no rivalry between them. It is her specific evidence that she had voluntarily deposed that her husband deceased Yogesh Goudar and accused No.1 to 6 were residing like brothers and she has also specifically deposed that the accused No.1 Basavaraj Muttagi had not murdered her husband. With this material the statement which has been recorded by the CBI under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., is required to be appreciated. In her statement under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., she has once again reiterated the aforesaid aspects and as admitted of joining the Congress party and later on she has stated that she was not keeping good relationship with her husband due to deceased Yogesh Goudar having an illicit relationship with another lady for about 5 years and she was residing separately. Be that as it may, the court is not dwelling upon the merits or demerits of the statement tendered by her. 16. However, it is noticed that at the inception of the trial before the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court at Dharwad she has specifically deposed in favour of accused No.1 Basavaraja Muttagi and now an application is being moved before this court stating that he was the main assailant who has 11 murdered her husband. The aforesaid aspects are in fact farrago and contrary to each other. Even otherwise, the trial of material witness are yet to be commenced and I have bestowed my anxious reading to the affidavit which is furnished by the learned SPP which applicant Smt.Mallavva Goudar had filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.58183/2017 wherein she has stated that during the life time of her husband, there was not even single incident of any quarrel, verbally or dispute between her husband and Sri Vinay R.Kulkarni –accused No.15. In fact she had leveled allegations against her husband’s brother Mr.Gurunath Goudar of being involved in criminal cases and also of de-railing the trial. All these aspects required to be considered in detail during the course of trial. All the aforesaid aspects can be considered during the course of trial and now in the application, the assistance to prosecution is sought to oppose the application, for which no grounds are made out. Under the circumstances, at this juncture, no grounds are made out by Smt.Mallavva Goudar to make a request to assist the prosecution. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. 17. Point No.2:- In view the discussions made herein above, I proceed to pass the following; Application filed by applicant Smt.Mallavva Goudar under Sec.301(2) of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected.”
Decision
ORDER The concerned Court also considers the judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of JAGJEET SINGH supra and rejects the application, noticing divergent stand of the petitioner. The concerned Court considers the cross-examination of the petitioner concerning the land dispute wherein she had admitted that there was no financial transaction 12 between accused No.1 and the deceased and there was no rivalry between them. It was her specific evidence that she had voluntary deposed that her husband and accused Nos.1 to 6 were residing like brothers and accused No.1 had not murdered her husband. 9. The Court also notices that the petitioner now is changing her stand contending that accused No.1 was the main assailant who has murdered her husband. These facts did not inspire confidence of the concerned Court. The same goes before this Court, it does not inspire semblance of confidence. All the contentions advanced by the petitioner are all a matter of trial, which are required to be considered in detail during the course of trial. In that light, no fault can be found with the order passed by the concerned Court. 10. Much reliance is placed on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court on the score that the petitioner is a victim. The Apex Court, in the said judgment, has held as follows: Analysis “…. …. …. 13 14. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties at considerable length, we find that the following questions fall for our consideration: 14.1. (A) Whether a “victim” as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of bail application of an accused? 14.2. (B) Whether the High Court overlooked the relevant considerations while passing the impugned order granting bail to the respondent-accused?; 14.3. (C) If so, whether the High Court's order dated 10- 2-2022 [Ashish Mishra v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 232] is palpably illegal and warrants interference by this Court? A. Victim's right to be heard 15. Until recently, criminal law had been viewed on a dimensional plane wherein the courts were required to adjudicate between the accused and the State. The “victim”—the de facto sufferer of a crime had no participation in the adjudicatory process and was made to sit outside the Court as a mute spectator. However, with the recognition that the ethos of criminal justice dispensation to prevent and punish “crime” had surreptitiously turned its back on the “victim”, the jurisprudence with respect to the rights of victims to be heard and to participate in criminal proceedings began to positively evolve.” (Emphasis supplied) The afore-quoted judgment would not render any assistance to the petitioner to buttress the submission that she is the victim and she should be permitted to assist the prosecution. The concerned Court, after considering the aforesaid judgment and on the 14 aforesaid reasons, which in the opinion of this Court are cogent, has rejected the application, which would not require any interference. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ