AYYAPPA YALLAPPA Vs. AKKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur in Crl.R.P. No. 26/2012 and consequentially quash the impugned order dated 10.8.2015 passed by JMFC-III at Raichur in CC No.3087/2015 (FIR No.415/2008) of its file.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, on 24.4.2008 at about 10:00 a.m., the respondent No.l-complainant had been to the pluck ground nuts in the land of Gouda situated at Ganjalli village. Her children by name Malleshi, Honnappa and Laxmi were in the house. When the complainant returned back at 6:00 PM, her elder son Malleshi was not in the house. She enquired with her younger son Honnappa, who told that his elder brother had gone to take bath at tank near Honnappa Tata temple along with Honnappa S/o Dodda Jambappa and Babu S/o Laxman at about 2:00 PM and has not returned back. On enquiry with Honnappa and Babu, they told that, when they were taking bath near Honnappa Tata temple, the accused Nos.l to 4 came there and accused No.l told the others that mother of Malleshi has given statement against them before Yapaldinni Police in the case of attempt to murder of Laxman. Even though she has been warned and told not to give evidence, she intends to give evidence. In order to teach her a lesson let them take her son and kill him by putting in the well of compressor Ramulu. The case can be closed by informing the police that the boy does not know swimming and is died due to drowning. They took Malleshi, 12 years aged son of complainant and put him in the well of Compressor Ramulu and thereby committed murder. Honnappa and Babu requested the accused not to take Malleshi but they did not care and also gave life threat to them. The complainant along with the said witnesses went to Yapaldinni Police Station and informed the same. The police came on the next day and lifted the dead body of her son by Sharanappa Palakamdoddi from the well at about 2.00 p.m. and informed the complainant to approach the Rural Police Station stating that the said well comes within the jurisdiction of that station. They approached the Rural Police Station and lodged a complaint. The police after investigation filed 'B' final report. The Magistrate after receiving 'B' final report and after issuing notice to the complainant, he filed protest petition on 16.6.2009. However, though several opportunities were given to the complainant, she did not turn up to give oral evidence till 28.9.2011. As such, the learned Magistrate accepted the 'B' final report and closed the case.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order dated 28.9.2011, the complainant filed Crl.R.P.No.26/2012 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raichur without making the petitioners herein as parties and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition by its order dated 24.1.2013 ignoring the fact that allowing revision petition is going to effect the rights and liberty of the petitioners, though they are not made parties to the petition. On the basis of the order of the revision petition, the learned Magistrate by order dated 10.8.2015 proceeded to allow the protest petition and thereby took the cognizance of the offence and directed to register the case and issued the summons to the petitioners-accused and after receipt of the summons, the petitioners came to know about all these aspects. As such, the present petition has been filed challenging the said order.