C.S.UMESHAIAH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59904
CRL.P No. 12826 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010572842026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12826 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
C.S.UMESHAIAH,
S/O LATE. SIDDAVEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/A CHIKKAVEERAYYANA PALYA,
TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 562 130.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION,
TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 562 130,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2.
NARASIMHA MURTHY T.G,
S/O GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O TAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 562 130.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGHARISH G S, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI PRADEEP J S, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59904
CRL.P No. 12826 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010572842026
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD 10.12.2024 IN CC.NO.822/2019 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MAGADI, VIDE ANNEXURE-K
BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 319 OF CR.P.C.
VIDE ANNEXURE-H FOR INCLUSION OF THE NAME OF
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CC.NO.822/2019, FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 143,147,148,324,504,506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for respondent No.1/State and the learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Respondent No.2 is the proposed accused.
This petition is filed challenging the order dated
10.12.2024 in C.C. No.822/2019 before the JMFC, Magadi.
In terms of the said order, the application under Section
319 Criminal Procedure Code filed by the respondent/State
came to be rejected. The present petition is filed by the
complainant.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59904
CRL.P No. 12826 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010572842026
2. The matter is pending before the trial Court for
the alleged offence under Section 143, 147, 148, 324, 504
and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the second respondent was named as accused No.1 in
the FIR and there was an allegation made against accused
No.1 about his involvement in the commission of the
offence. However, after the investigation, second
respondent has been left out by the investigating agency
and the charge sheet is filed against other 7 persons.
4. Thereafter, the evidence is recorded by the
Court. The complainant has given his evidence before the
Court and one eyewitness out of 2 witnesses (viz., CWs 2
and 3) is examined. After the evidence of the
Petitioner/complainant, the respondent/State filed an
application to implead respondent No.2 as accused no. 8.
Said application is erroneously rejected on the premise
that there are no materials to implead accused No.8.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59904
CRL.P No. 12826 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010572842026
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the order is erroneous. The complainant has clearly
stated in the examination-in-chief that respondent
No.2/proposed accused No.8 was present at the time of
alleged incident. Thus, the learned counsel for the
petitioner would contend that the impugned order has to
be set aside.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the petitioner would place reliance on the judgments of
the Apex Court in Mohammad Kaleem vs State of Uttar
1
Pradesh & Ors. and Hardeep Singh versus State of
2
Punjab & Others .
7. Referring to the Apex Court judgments learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that in case the
name of the accused is mentioned in the complaint, then,
such case would stand on a different footing and based on
the statement of the complainant in the examination-in-
1
( 2026) 3 SCR 586
2
( 2014) 3 SCC 92
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59904
CRL.P No. 12826 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010572842026
chief, the Court can certainly take a view that the said
person has to be arrayed as an accused.
8. In addition, it is also his further submission that
answer given in the cross examination has been wrongly
interpreted. It is the contention that the
petitioner/complainant in his cross examination has stated
that respondent No.2- Narsimhamurthy was not present.
However, it is the submission that by making such
statement the petitioner has only referred to the fact that
Narsimhamurthy was not present in the Court when the
cross examination was conducted. It is the submission
that the statement of the petitioner in the cross
examination should not be construed to mean that
Narsimhamurthy was not present at the scene of offence.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would
submit that the statement in the examination-in-chief
alone is not sufficient to array the person as an accused. It
is the submission that the settled position of law is that
the evidence before the Court should be slightly higher
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59904
CRL.P No. 12826 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010572842026
than the prima facie evidence to implead an accused and
that aspect is taken into consideration by the trial Court.
10. The trial Court has also considered the cross
examination of the complainant and his witness. The
prosecution has treated the complainant and his witness
as hostile. In the cross examination nothing is elicited to
say that the present respondent No. 2/proposed accused
was present at the scene of offence, is the submission on
behalf of respondent No.2.
11. It is also the further submission that PW2 has
turned completely hostile and not supported the case of
the prosecution either in the examination-in-chief or in the
cross examination. And it is contended that in the cross
examination, PW1 has stated that Narasimhamurthy was
not present.
12. The Court has considered the contentions raised
at the Bar and perused the records.
13. This Court has also considered the order passed
by the trial Court which is impugned in this present
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59904
CRL.P No. 12826 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010572842026
petition. In the said order, the trial Court has held
materials are not available to implead proposed
respondent No.2 as accused.
14. The Court has taken a view that from the
charge sheet materials presence of Narasimhamurthy is
not noticed. This Court has noticed that CW3 is cited as a
witness by the prosecution. However, the admitted factual
position before this Court is CW3 is not yet examined.
15. These being the facts, the Court finds a slight
error on the part of the Trial Court in making an
observation that CW3 is examined. Since, CW3 is not
examined, the Court is of the view that after the
examination of CW3, the respondent/State should be
permitted to file application to implead those persons as it
deems necessary, if so advised in law.
16. After the evidence of CW.3 is recorded, the
respondent/State is permitted to file necessary
application, if so advised in law. If such an application is
filed, it shall be considered in accordance with law.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59904
CRL.P No. 12826 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010572842026
17. It is made clear that the Court has not
expressed anything on the merits of the application to be
filed. At this juncture, this Court finds no reason to
interfere the with the order.
18. The petition is disposed of with the
aforementioned liberty.
19. Since this Court has taken a view that the
application filed before examination of CW3 is premature,
the Trial Court shall consider the application if any, filed by
the respondent-State to implead the party in accordance
with law without being influenced by its earlier order.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
brn
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30
…