M G DATTATHREYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by P.W. 2-M.G. Dattathreya, younger brother of the deceased complainant-M.G. Shantha Kumar, challenging the order dated 8-6-2012 made on I.A. No. 10 in S.C. No. 705 of 2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore City. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was lodged by the petitioner's elder brother Shantha Kumar against Nagendra Reddy and another for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On production of Cyber Forensic Analysis Report during trial by the expert witness, the petitioner came to know that Sri Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, Sudhama Nagar, Bangalore, and Sri B.V. Ravi, Advocate, Sampangiramanagar, Bangalore, have abetted the commission of offence by the proposed respondents/accused and they are liable to be punished under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. before the Trial Court to add the above-said Advocates as accused in the sessions case, but the learned Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the application though a prima facie case is made out against the proposed accused for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the IPC.

(2.) Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is no whisper about the alleged abetment of commission of crime by the proposed accused in the complaint or in the statement of witnesses viz. P.Ws. 1 to 34. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. and there is no merit in the revision petition.

(3.) Sri M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, who are accused 1 and 2 facing trial, submits that as the sessions case is pending since 2008, this Court, by an order dated 8-3-2012 made in Cri. P. No. 1187 of 2012 has directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. But, the petitioner, with an intention to harass the respondents/accused, has adopted a method for protracting the proceedings and there is no merit in the revision petition.