MR LAWRENCE VEIGAS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6062 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7228 OF 2024
IN CRL.P No. 6062/2024
BETWEEN:
MR DAVID VEIGAS
SON OF SHRI ANDREW VEIGAS
AGED ABOITU 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT SAINIK NIVAS
JANATHA COLONY
VITTAL KASABA VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK
MANGALORE DISTRICT-574 243
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VITTAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
2. SMT. ANITHA VEIGAS
W/O ALLPHONSE VEIGAS
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT KOOTELU HOUSE
VITTAL KASABA VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK
MANGALURU-574 243
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. ABHIJITH K.S, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.J. ROHITH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.09.2023 PASSED
U/S 319 OF CR.P.C., TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.216/2018, PENDING
BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
BANTWAL, D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S
504, 324, 354, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.
IN CRL.P NO. 7228/2024
BETWEEN:
MR LAWRENCE VEIGAS
SON OF SHRI ANDREW VEIGAS
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOOTELU HOUSE,
VITTAL KASABA VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK
MANGALORE DISTRICT 574 243
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VITTAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE -560 001
2. SMT. ANITHA VEIGAS
W/O ALPHONSE VEIGAS
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOOTELU HOUSE,
VITTAL KASABA VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK
MANGALURU -574 243
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. ABHIJITH K.S, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.J. ROHITH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT, ALL THE FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.216/2018, PENDING BEFORE
THE HONORABLE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
COURT AT BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 324, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
IN Crl.P.No.6062/2024:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
challenging the order dated 23.09.2023 passed in
C.C.No.216/2018 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Bantwala, Dakshina Kannada District (for short, ‘the learned
Magistrate’), whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the
application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of
Cr.P.C. and thereby, directed to add the petitioner as accused
No.2 in the said proceedings i.e. in C.C.No.216/2018.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent
No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
22.02.2017, alleging that accused No.1, namely, Lawrence
Veigas, trespassed into her property and assaulted her with a
ಉಂ ೆ ಹು
stick while she was plucking tamarind ( ) from a tree in
her land. At that time, the petitioner, being the brother of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
accused No.1, who had accompanied with accused No.1 to the
spot instigated accused No.1 by stating that he should not
spare respondent No.2 and should kill her. As such, she lodged
the complaint against the accused No.1 and this petitioner,
which was registered in Crime No.26/2017 dated 22.02.2017
for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 354, 506
r/w 34 of IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, respondent No.2
gave a further statement stating that the petitioner had not
participated in the alleged incident and that his name had been
inadvertently mentioned in the complaint. Accordingly,
respondent No.1-Police dropped the petitioner from the charge
sheet and filed the charge sheet against accused No.1 alone for
the aforementioned offences.
4. Thereafter, the case proceeded to trial before the
learned Magistrate. During her examination as PW.1,
respondent No.2 once again deposed that the petitioner had
participated in the incident and instigated accused No.1 at the
time of the occurrence. In view of the said testimony, the
prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
Cr.P.C., seeking to implead the petitioner as an additional
accused.
5. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the
application and the oral and documentary evidence on record,
allowed the application and directed that the petitioner be
added as accused No.2 and tried along with accused No.1.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this
petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
7. Apart from raising several other contentions,
learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that,
though respondent No.2 alleged in the complaint that the
petitioner had accompanied accused No.1 to the place of
incident and instigated him to take away her life, she
subsequently gave a further statement before the police
categorically stating that the petitioner had been inadvertently
named in the complaint, that he had not participated in the
incident, and that he was not present at the place of occurrence
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
on the date of the incident. Accordingly, the police dropped the
petitioner from the charge sheet. Hence, he contended that the
subsequent version of respondent No.2 during her examination
before the learned Magistrate could not be relied upon without
due scrutiny or be accorded substantial evidentiary value. He
further contended that the trial Court had failed to apply the
requisite test while considering the application filed under
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
HARDEEP SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Court in ,
reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 , and reiterated in the subsequent
decision in HETRAM @ BABLI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND
ANOTHER , reported in 2024 INSC 903 . Accordingly, he sought to
allow the petition.
8. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
the learned HCGP opposed the prayer of the petitioner,
contending that respondent No.2-PW.1, in her testimony before
the learned Magistrate, had categorically stated that the
petitioner instigated accused No.1 to take away the life of
respondent No.2. In the circumstances, the prosecution had
rightly filed the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
They further contended that the learned Magistrate, after due
consideration of the material on record, had passed a detailed
order observing that the statement of PW.1 recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and her testimony before the Court
corroborated the allegations against the petitioner. Hence, they
submitted that the impugned order does not warrant
interference by this Court and accordingly sought dismissal of
the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the entire charge sheet materials.
10. On careful scrutiny of the complaint averments, the
further statement of respondent No.2, and the other materials
on record, it emerges that, on the date of the incident, accused
No.1 initially trespassed into the property of respondent No.2
and assaulted her. Thereafter, the petitioner, who had
accompanied accused No.1 to the place of occurrence,
instigated him to take away the life of respondent No.2. Thus,
even according to respondent No.2, the alleged act of
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
instigation by the petitioner occurred after the assault by
accused No.1.
11. Further, in her statement recorded by the police
during the course of investigation, respondent No.2 stated that
she had inadvertently mentioned in the complaint that the
petitioner was present at the place of occurrence and had
instigated accused No.1. She also stated before the learned
Magistrate that she had mistakenly implicated the petitioner
and that he was not present at the scene of occurrence on the
date of the incident. In view of the said statement, the police
dropped the petitioner from the charge sheet and filed the
charge sheet against accused No.1 alone.
12. However, during the course of trial, respondent
No.2 once again reiterated the allegations made in the
complaint while deposing before the learned Magistrate, stating
that the petitioner had instigated accused No.1. In such
circumstances, in my considered opinion, much evidentiary
value cannot be attached to the evidence of respondent No.2 to
array this petitioner as an additional accused.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
13. At the outset, as discussed supra, even according to
the complaint averments and the testimony of respondent No.2
before the learned Magistrate, the alleged act of instigation by
the petitioner took place after the assault by accused No.1. As
a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed the CCTV footages and other documents and wherein he
pointed out that this petitioner was not at all present at the
scene of occurrence on 22.02.2017 at 10:30 a.m., he was at
Vitla bus stand.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hetram @
Babli (supra), while dealing the application under 319 held
that, the test to be applied for dealing with the application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C is of more than a prima facie, which
is required to be considered at the time of framing of the
charge. The test to be applied is that if the evidence goes
unrebutted, whether it would lead to conviction, the Court has
to be recorded satisfaction in such terms and if such
satisfaction cannot be recorded the Court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
15. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND
ANOTHER AIRONLINE 2021 SC 799
reported in held that the test
as laid down by the constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex
Court for invoking power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C intra alia
includes the principle that only when strong and cogent
evidence occurs against a person from the evidence, the power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The power
cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The test
to be applied, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is one
which is more than prima facie case which is applied at the
time of framing of charge. In the instant case, as discussed
supra, no such strong prima facie case is made out against the
petitioner. In view of the inconsistent and uncorroborated
statements of respondent No.2 herself, the mere fact that she
has deposed against the petitioner during the course of trial is,
by itself, insufficient to array him as an additional accused,
particularly when the allegations against him are vague and
omnibus in nature. These material aspects have not been
properly appreciated by the learned Magistrate while allowing
the application filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the impugned
order passed by the learned Magistrate warrants interference
by this Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed .
ii. The order dated 23.09.2023 passed in
C.C.No.216/2018 by the Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Bantwala, Dakshina Kannada District is
hereby set aside.
In Crl.P.No.7228/2024:
16. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner – accused No.1 in
C.C No.216/2018 (arising out of Crime No.26/2017 registered
by Vitla Police Station), for the offences punishable under
sections 504, 324, 354, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, pending on the file
of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwala, Dakshina
Kannada District (for short, “the learned Magistrate”).
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
17. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police alleging that,
on 22.02.2017 at about 10:30 a.m., while she was plucking
ಉಂ ೆ ಹು
tamarind ( ) from a tree in her land using a stick, the
petitioner-accused No.1 illegally trespassed into her property,
abused her in filthy language, and attempted to outrage her
modesty. It is further alleged that the petitioner snatched the
stick from her hand and assaulted her on her left hand, right
elbow, back, and head, causing bleeding injuries. At that time,
the petitioner's brother, i.e., accused No.2, who had
accompanied the petitioner to the spot, allegedly instigated him
by stating that he should not spare respondent No.2 and should
kill her. However, her mother-in-law intervened and pacified
the quarrel. Thereafter, the petitioner and his brother threw
away the stick, threatened her with dire consequences, and fled
from the spot. Hence, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint
before respondent No.1-Police.
18. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent
No.1-Police registered an FIR in Crime No.26/2017 for the
aforementioned offences. Subsequently, upon completion of the
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the
petitioner for the said offences. Accordingly, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
19. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
20. Apart from raising several other contentions,
learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that a
civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and respondent
No.2 in respect of the landed property. Hence, it was contended
that, in order to give a criminal colour to the civil dispute,
respondent No.2 had lodged a false complaint against the
petitioner. He further contended that no such incident had
occurred on the date alleged by respondent No.2. Referring to
the wound certificate produced by the petitioner, learned
counsel submitted that, except for contusions on the left elbow,
no injuries as alleged by respondent No.2 in the complaint are
reflected therein. In such circumstances, he contended that no
prima facie
case is made out against the petitioner and that the
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of
the process of law. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
21. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
the learned HCGP opposed the prayer of the petitioner and
jointly contended that, on perusal of the complaint and charge
sheet materials, specific allegations are forthcoming against the
petitioner. It is alleged that, on 22.02.2017, the petitioner
trespassed into the property of respondent No.2 while she was
plucking tamarind and assaulted her with the stick that she was
using to pluck tamarind. They further submitted that
respondent No.2 obtained first-aid treatment at the Primary
Health Centre, Vitla, following the incident. In such
circumstances, they contended that the charge sheet materials
disclose prima facie grounds to proceed against the petitioner.
Accordingly, they sought dismissal of the petition.
22. I have given my anxious consideration both to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the entire charge sheet materials.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
23. As could be gathered from the records, no doubt, a
civil dispute is pending between the parties in respect of the
landed property. However, on perusal of the complaint
averments and the charge sheet materials, a clear prima facie
case is made out against the petitioner. In the complaint
respondent No.2 specifically alleges that the petitioner
trespassed into her property and assaulted her with the stick
that she was using to pluck tamarind. Respondent No.2 is
stated to have sustained injuries and obtained first-aid
treatment at the Primary Health Centre, Vitla. The wound
certificate is also placed on record.
24. Additionally, CWs.2 to 4 are cited as eyewitnesses
to the incident, and their statements disclose the alleged
incident and the use of the stick by the petitioner to assault
respondent No.2. The said stick is also stated to have been
recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The statements of
the eyewitnesses and the other materials collected by the
police are matters to be tested during trial. At this stage, the
mere pendency of a civil dispute between the parties cannot,
by itself, be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings when
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59207
CRL.P No. 6062 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 7228 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010321162024
the charge sheet materials disclose a prima facie case against
the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merits,
stands dismissed.
25. However, considering that the incident occurred in
the year 2017, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
proceedings in C.C. No.216/2018 as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within an outer limit of seven months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
CR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12