STATE OF KARNATAKA vs RAKSHITH

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60701
CRL.P No. 8795 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010434862024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8795 OF 2024


BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KOLLEGALA RURAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STAE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560001.
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI. SPP., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.
RAKSHITH
S/O KUMARASWAMY @ HANUULA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAMALANGI VILLAGE,
KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571313.

2. KUMARASWAMY @ KUMARA @ HANNULA
S/O LATE PUTTAMADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAMALANGI VILLAGE,
KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571313.



Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60701
CRL.P No. 8795 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010434862024



3. SRI. H.S. MURTHY
S/O K. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
HOSA MALANGI VILLAGE,
KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571313.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PARAMESWARAPPA C.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2023
IN SPL. CASE NO.26/2021 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-1, CHAMRAJANAGARA AND
SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO CASES THEREBY REJECTING THE
APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 319 OF CR.P.C, BY SPL.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY ALLOWING THE PETITION,
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED 17.05.2023,
FILED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 319 OF CR.PC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

In the present petition, the State has called in question
the order dated 20.06.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.26/2021 by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I,
Chamarajanagara, and Special Judge for POCSO cases,
whereby the learned Special Judge rejected the application filed

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60701
CRL.P No. 8795 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010434862024



by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., seeking to
implead one Manjula as an proposed-accused.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, one
Varshitha H.M., lodged a complaint against respondent Nos.1
and 2 and one Manjula, i.e mother of respondent No.1, alleging
that, on 20.08.2020, they trespassed into her house, abused
her in filthy language. It is also alleged in the complaint that
the respondent No.1 subjected her to abuse and extorted
money from her. Based on the said complaint, FIR came to be
registered in Crime No.158/2020 dated 21.08.2020 for the
offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 384 r/w 34 of
IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act.
3. Subsequently, in her further statement, the complainant
clarified that Manjula was not present at the scene of
occurrence and had not committed any offence. Accordingly,
the Police dropped Manjula from the charge sheet and filed the
charge sheet against the remaining accused. Thereafter, the
case was committed to the Sessions Court and registered as
Spl.C.No.26/2021 against respondent Nos.1 and 2 - accused

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60701
CRL.P No. 8795 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010434862024



Nos.1 and 2. After examination of PWs.1 to 24, the prosecution
filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., seeking to
implead Manjula as an proposed-accused. The said application
came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge. Aggrieved by
the same, the State has preferred the present petition.
4. Heard the learned HCGP.
5. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that the
complainant has specifically stated in the complaint that the
proposed accused, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, trespassed
into her house and committed the alleged offences. He further
submits that, even in her statement, the complainant has
reiterated the involvement of the proposed-accused, stating
that she had trespassed into the house along with the other
accused. Therefore, when the involvement of the proposed-
accused is specifically borne out from the complaint averments
and the statements of the complainant, the prosecution was
justified in filing an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.,
seeking to implead her as an additional accused. It is further
contended that the learned Special Judge has failed to properly

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60701
CRL.P No. 8795 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010434862024



appreciate the materials available on record while rejecting the
application. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Despite service of notice, there is no representation for
the respondents.
7. I have given my anxious consideration on the submission
and perused the entire charge sheet materials.
8. As could be gathered from the records, though the name
of the proposed-accused was mentioned in the complaint and
the FIR was initially registered against her, subsequently, upon
completion of the investigation, respondent No.1-Police
dropped her from the charge sheet, as no material sufficient to
proceed against her was found. Thereafter, during the course of
trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 24 and marked 52
documents as Exs.P1 to P52. However, even upon appreciation
of the evidence so adduced, no incriminating material or
specific allegations implicating the proposed accused have been
brought on record. In such circumstances, the learned Special
Judge, upon consideration of the materials available on record,
has rightly rejected the application filed by the prosecution

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60701
CRL.P No. 8795 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010434862024



under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The settled position of law in this
regard has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena
of judgments.
9. The degree of satisfaction required for exercising the
power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is higher than the prima
facie satisfaction required at the stage of framing of charges.
The Court must be satisfied that the evidence on record is such
that there is a strong possibility of the proposed-accused being
convicted if the proceedings are allowed to continue against
such person, as explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
reported in 2014 (3) SCC 92.
10. In the present case, in the absence of any reliable
evidence implicating the proposed-accused, the learned Special
Judge was justified in rejecting the application filed under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, no grounds are made out
warranting interference with the impugned order.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60701
CRL.P No. 8795 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010434862024



Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merits, stands
dismissed .



SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE











GPG
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6