LAWS(KAR)-2019-6-206

CHANDRA NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On June 06, 2019
CHANDRA NAIK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.S.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Kumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that respondent No.2 who is the nephew of the petitioner, on 02.05.2017 filed a complaint against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2, the police have registered offences under 323, 506, 448 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. On 04.05.2017, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 of the Code, in which it was stated that his uncle viz., the petitioner was not present at the time of the incident. The police after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3. However, the charge sheet was not filed against the petitioner. At the time of recording of the evidence before the Trial Court, Plaintiff Witness No.1 did not implicate the petitioner. However, the petitioner No.2 in his examination-in-chief stated that his brother viz., the petitioner has also beaten him along with other three accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, an application under Section 319 of the Code was filed by the prosecution, which has been allowed by the Magistrate by order dated 01.02.2019 by which the petitioner has been summoned as accused No.4.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a child specialist and is aged about 60 years. It is further submitted that his nephew viz., Plaintiff Witness No.1 did not implicate him initially. However, subsequently his brother viz., Plaintiff Witness No.2 had stated that he was also one of the assailants. It is also urged that the power to summon an accused has to be exercised for compelling reasons and same has to be exercised sparingly only when there is a strong and cogent evidence against a person. In support of his submissions, reference has been made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of 'S.GOPAL ANR. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA,' 2006 (6) AIR KAR R 184, 'HARDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.', (2014) 3 SCC 92, 'BRIJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN', (2017) 7 SCC 706, 'S.MOHAMMED ISPAHANI VS. YOGENDRA YADAV', AIR 2017 SC 4994, 'PANDURANG AND ORS. VS. STATE', 2017 (3) AKR 345, 'LABHUJI AMARAJI THAKUR AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF GUJRATH AND ANR.', CRL.APPEAL NO.1349/2018, 'PERIYASAMY AND ORS. VS. S.NALLASAMY', CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.456/2019. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Trial Court and have submitted that the discretion conferred on the Trial Court has been exercised on sound principles of law.