HANAMANT S/O FAKKIRAPPA EMMI ALIAS KARAKARAMUNDI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17573
CRL.P No. 102075 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020110082024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102075 OF 2024

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

1.
HANAMANT
S/O FAKKIRAPPA EMMI @ KARAKARAMUNDI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING OF: MURGOD VILLAGE,
TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 590 006.

2. SHETTEPPA
S/O FAKIRAPPA EMMI @ KARAKARAMUNDI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING OF: MURGOD VILLAGE,
TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 590 006.

3. YALLAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA EMMI @ KARAKARAMUNDI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING OF: MURGOD VILLAGE,
TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 590 006.

4.
NAGAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA EMMI @ KARAKARAMUNDI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING OF: MURGOD VILLAGE,
TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 590 006.

5. BHIMAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA EMMI @ KARAKARAMUNDI,










Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17573
CRL.P No. 102075 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020110082024


AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING OF: MURGOD VILLAGE,
TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 590 006.

6. ADIVEPPA S/O NAGAPPA BHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING OF: MURGOD VILLAGE,
TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 590 006.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. ANAND KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MURGOD POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

2.
ASHA ADIVEPPA EMMI @ KARAKARAMUNDI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RESIDING OF: MURGOD,
TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 590 006.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE JMFC SAUNDATTI IN (CRIME 224/2019 IN
MURGOD P.S.) C.C. NO.237/2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED
TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 TO 9 IN CC NO.237/2020 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE JMFC SAUNDATTI, OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S.498(A), 323, R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC AND 3 AND
4 OF DP ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17573
CRL.P No. 102075 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020110082024


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 9 have filed this petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS seeking to quash the
entire proceedings in C.C.No.237/2020 pending on the file of
learned I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Saundatti, Belagavi
District, in which, the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.4
to 9. Hence taking exception to the same, the petitioners have
filed this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yashodhan
Singh and Others V/s The State of Uttar Pradesh and
1
Another would contend that there is no mandate of law under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C to issue notice to the persons, who are
sought to be arrayed as accused persons. On that ground, he
sought quashing of the notice issued to the petitioners.

1
2023 Live Law (SC) 576: 2023 INSC 652

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17573
CRL.P No. 102075 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020110082024


3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yashodhan
Singh and Others V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
(supra) held as under:
“32. Merely because in certain proceedings the
persons summoned had been provided an opportunity
of being heard cannot be the same thing as stating
that it is a mandatory requirement or a precondition
that at the time of summoning a person under Section
319 of the Cr.P.C., he should be given an opportunity
of being heard. That is not the mandate of law
inasmuch as Section 319 clearly uses the expression
“to proceed” which means to proceed with the trial
and not to jeopardise the trial at the instance of the
person(s) summoned by conducting a mini trial or a
trial within a trial thereby derailing the main trial of
the case and particularly against the accused who are
already facing trail and who may be in custody. A
person who is summoned in exercise of the power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot hijack the trial so to
say and deviate from its focus and take it to a tangent
in order to bolster his own case in a bid to escape
trial. All that is contemplated when a person is
summoned to appear is to ascertain that he is the
very person who was summoned and if any
summoned person fails to appear on the given date.
On the appearance of the summoned person, no
procedure of an inquiry or opportunity of being heard
is envisaged before been added as an accused to the
list of accused already facing trial unless such a
summoned person had already been discharged, in
which event, an inquiry is contemplated as discussed
above. Thus, the contention that a summoned person
must be given an opportunity of being heard before

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17573
CRL.P No. 102075 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020110082024


being added as an accused to face the trial is clearly
not contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also
observed by this Court in Hardeep Singh that such a
summoned person can assail a summoning order
before a superior Court and will also have the right of
cross examining the witnesses as well as can let in his
defence evidence, if any.

33. Thus, the lateral entry of a person
summoned in exercise of power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. is only to face the trial along with other
accused. This, being a salutary provision in order to
meet the ends of justice, the same cannot be diluted
by importing within the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
principles of natural justice which in any case would
be followed during the trial.

It is well settled that principles of natural justice
cannot be applied in strait-jacket formula and they
would depend upon the facts of each case and the
object and purpose to be achieved under a provision
of law.

34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do
not think that the judgment in Jogendra Yadav calls
for any re-consideration and the said observation in
paragraph 9 as extracted supra is relatable only to
the facts of the said case. Thus, the principle of
hearing a person who is summoned cannot be read
into Section 319 Cr.P.C. Such a procedure is not at all
contemplated therein. In the circumstances, we do
not accept the contentions of the appellants herein.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17573
CRL.P No. 102075 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020110082024


4. In view of the above, the notice issued to the
petitioners on an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
requires to be quashed.

5. The perusal of the joint memo filed in
Crl.Misc.No.404/2024 filed before the learned I Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Saundatti dated 07.05.2025 goes to show that
both accused No.1 and defacto complainant entered into
compromise, wherein the defacto complainant agreed to
withdraw the criminal case in CC.No.237/2020.

Hence, in view of the compromise held between the
parties, the proceedings pending against the petitioners will be
an abuse of process of law.

Hence, the Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed .


ii. The order dated 22.04.2024 passed by learned I Addl.
Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti in C.C.No.237/2020

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17573
CRL.P No. 102075 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020110082024


issuing notice to the petitioners on an application filed
under Section 319 Cr.P.C is quashed.

iii. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the
application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C on merits
in accordance with law.



.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE




MN /CT-SK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 96