CRLP1226 16 04 01 2017

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1226 OF 2016
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1227 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. K.S.Vinod,
Son of Siddegowda,
Aged about 36 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Residing at Kanachur Village,
Hanthur Post,
Gonibeedu Hobli,
Mudigere Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District – 577 132.
2. K.N.Umesh,
Son of Manjegowda,
Hanthur Post,
Gonibeedu Hobli,
2
Mudigere Taluk,
3. K.K.Suresh,
Son of Karigowda,
Hanthur Post,
Gonibeedu Hobli,
Mudigere Taluk,
4. Lakshmana,
Son of Kariyappa,
Hanthur Post,
Gonibeedu Hobli,
Mudigere Taluk,
5. K.G.Manjunath @ Selvi,
Son of Guddegowda,
Hanthur Post,
Gonibeedu Hobli,
Mudigere Taluk,
6. K.T.Harish,
Son of Thimmegowda,
3

Hanthur Post,
Gonibeedu Hobli,
Mudigere Taluk,
7. K.M.Sudhakara,
Son of Muddugowda,
Hanthur Post,
Gonibeedu Hobli,
Mudigere Taluk,
8. K.N.Laxmisha,
Son of Ningegowda,
Aged about 39years,
Hanthur Post,
Gonibeedu Hobli,
Mudigere Taluk,
9. K.R.Puttaswamy,
Son of Rudrappa,
Hanthur Post,
Gonibeedu Hobli,
4
Mudigere Taluk,
…PETITIONERS
COMMON
(By Shri Ravindra B. Deshpande, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by

Mudigere Police,
2. Anil Shetty,
Son of Shekar Shetty,
Occupation: Owner Athithi Hotel,
K.M.Road,
Mudigere,
…RESPONDENTS
COMMON
(By Shri B. Visweswaraiah B., Government Pleader for

Respondent No.1;
Shri S.V.Shastri, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
IN CRL.P.No.1226/2016
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated
5
22.12.2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial

Magistrate First Class at Mudigere in C.C.No.614/2009 in
respect of application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
IN CRL.P.No.1227/2016
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated
22.12.2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate First Class at Mudigere in C.C.No.614/2009 in
respect of application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Admission this

day, the court made the following:
ORDER
These two petitions are filed by the accused. The
Criminal petition No.1226/2016 is filed in the following
circumstances:
The charges having been framed against the accused,
they have stood trial and the trial is on. At that stage, the
prosecution had filed an application under Section 311 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) to examine Dr. Kumarnayak who had
treated PW-2 in the first instance. It transpires that in the

6
charge-sheet, the police have only filed the medical records
pertaining to the treatment of PW-2 that he had obtained at the
Mangalore Hospital and not at the local place where he had
initially undergone treatment. It is found that this has come to
light pursuant to an order of the Human Rights Commission in
related proceedings where there was a direction to the police to
further investigate and it was then reported that there was such
an instance of PW-2 having been treated in the first instance at
a local hospital and thereafter having obtained treatment at
Mangalore. The police had not filed documents pertaining to
the initial treatment undergone at the local hospital, which
requires to be placed before the court. It is in this background
that the application was filed.
In the second of these petitions, namely in
Crl.P.1227/2016, an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was
filed to call for the accident case register dated 29.06.2009 from
the said Dr. Kumarnayak. Those applications having been
allowed, the petitioner is before this court challenging the same.

7
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that any material gathered in independent
proceedings under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
and if at the instance of the Human Rights Commission if there
was any investigation and material gathered, the same could not
mechanically be produced in the criminal proceedings at the
instance of the complainant or the prosecution, merely because
it would have a bearing on the case and it relates to the same
incident. The provision under Section 173(8) in which such
material is to be brought on record contemplates the court
granting permission to conduct a further investigation and
thereafter gather material. It does not provide for a situation
where material gathered in collateral proceedings is already
made available and that is sought to be produced on record
mechanically, which would be irregular, as the proceedings
before the Human Rights Commission under the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993 are civil proceedings and the merging
of the two proceedings as it were, by recourse to such a

8
procedure, would result in a grave miscarriage of justice and
would seriously prejudice the case of the accused. Further,
there is an express bar under Section 15 of the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993. Accordingly, the learned counsel
raises serious objection.
3. The tenor of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. does contemplate
an investigation and thereafter material which is gathered at
such investigation be placed before the court if the main object
of the criminal trial is to arrive at the truth. If there is material
available, it has to be brought on record in whatever manner it
has come to light and the provision under which the same is
brought before the court, pales into insignificance. Therefore,
the tenor of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. notwithstanding, if it is
germane to the case of the prosecution and if it would have a
bearing on the case, the material could be brought before the
court in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and it cannot be said
that merely it would strengthen the case of the prosecution.
The accused cannot be heard to plead that it would seriously

9
prejudice their case. It would definitely prejudice their case and
the object of the prosecution being to arrive at the truth,
additional material being brought in in this fashion, cannot be
said to be irregular or illegal, since the object of trial is to arrive
at the truth.
Therefore, the court below having allowed the
applications, cannot be faulted. The petitions are accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS

CRLP1226 16 04 01 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRLP1226 16 04 01 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1226 OF 2016

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1227 OF 2016

Aged about 40 years,

(By Shri Ravindra B. Deshpande, Advocate)

1. The State of Karnataka by

(By Shri B. Visweswaraiah B., Government Pleader for

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of

22.12.2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of

These Criminal Petitions coming on for Admission this

These two petitions are filed by the accused. The

Criminal petition No.1226/2016 is filed in the following

The charges having been framed against the accused,

prosecution had filed an application under Section 311 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) to examine Dr. Kumarnayak who had

treated PW-2 in the first instance. It transpires that in the

charge-sheet, the police have only filed the medical records

pertaining to the treatment of PW-2 that he had obtained at the

Mangalore Hospital and not at the local place where he had

initially undergone treatment. It is found that this has come to

light pursuant to an order of the Human Rights Commission in

related proceedings where there was a direction to the police to

an instance of PW-2 having been treated in the first instance at

a local hospital and thereafter having obtained treatment at

Mangalore. The police had not filed documents pertaining to

the initial treatment undergone at the local hospital, which

requires to be placed before the court. It is in this background

that the application was filed.

In the second of these petitions, namely in

Crl.P.1227/2016, an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was

the said Dr. Kumarnayak. Those applications having been

allowed, the petitioner is before this court challenging the same.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that any material gathered in independent

proceedings under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

and if at the instance of the Human Rights Commission if there

mechanically be produced in the criminal proceedings at the

instance of the complainant or the prosecution, merely because

it would have a bearing on the case and it relates to the same

incident. The provision under Section 173(8) in which such

material is to be brought on record contemplates the court

granting permission to conduct a further investigation and

thereafter gather material. It does not provide for a situation

where material gathered in collateral proceedings is already

made available and that is sought to be produced on record

mechanically, which would be irregular, as the proceedings

before the Human Rights Commission under the Protection of

of the two proceedings as it were, by recourse to such a

procedure, would result in a grave miscarriage of justice and

would seriously prejudice the case of the accused. Further,

there is an express bar under Section 15 of the Protection of

Human Rights Act, 1993. Accordingly, the learned counsel

raises serious objection.

3. The tenor of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. does contemplate

an investigation and thereafter material which is gathered at

such investigation be placed before the court if the main object

of the criminal trial is to arrive at the truth. If there is material

available, it has to be brought on record in whatever manner it