LAWS(KAR)-1978-6-10

N N PONNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On June 09, 1978
N.N.PONNAPPA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, filed under S 482 of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the order dated 14-10-1977 passed by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madikeri, in Criminal Case No. 2992 of 1977 allowing the request of complainant N. M. Chatticha respondent : 2, and issuing process against the petitioner directing that he should be the 3rd accused in the said case. .

(2.) The few facts which are necessary may be narrated as follows: In regard to an incident that had happened at about 7-00 a.m. on 16-7-1977, the complainant had lodged information in the Napoklu Police Station. A case under Section 324 read with Section 34, I.P.C. was registered and investigated. The Napoklu police filed a charge-sheet as against two accused only. The petitioner was not one of them. The magistrate took cognizance of the offence and then issued process against the said two accused. Those two accused appeared before the Magistrate in response to the process. At that stage the complainant filed an application supported by two affidavits of two witnesses praying that process be issued against the petitioner also as he was also one of the accused complained against by the complainant when he lodged information with the police and the petitioner had not been shown as an accused in the charge-sheet, That request was allowed by the learned Magistrate after hearing both sides and he has passed the impugned order issuing process against the petitioner directing that he be made accused No. 3 in the criminal case.

(3.) In support of his conclusion the learned Magistrate has relied on AIR1971 SC 1708 , 1973 (0 )BLJR630 , 1971 CriLJ1266 , (1971 )3 SCC329 , [1971 ]SuppSCR777 , 1971 (III )UJ720 (SC ) relating to the principle that cognizance is to be taken of offences and not of offenders AIR1960 Kant 237 , AIR1960 KAR 237 , AIR1960 Mys 237 , 1960 CriLJ1226 that the Court is not bound by the final report submitted by the Police. He has reasoned that the complainant had named the petitioner also as one of the assailants in his information to the police and that averment was further supported by the two affidavits produced along with the application and, therefore, process ought to be issued against the petitioner and he should be made accused No. 3,