logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 830 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Criminal Revision Petition No. 1656 Of 2023
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
Parties : C.M. Mallikarjun Achar Versus K.C. Nagaraj & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Hanumanthappa B. Haravigowdar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, D.P. Mahesh, Advocate, M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP.
Date of Judgment : 06-07-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 401 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC 33542,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Crl.RP is filed u/S. 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgement and order dated 04.09.2023, on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere in Criminal Appeal No.25/2017 and Judgement and order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.1490/2014 dated 15.09.2016, on the file of the Learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Davanagere and consequently allow this revision petition.)

Oral Order

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

2. This revision petition is filed against order of acquittal by the Trial Court and confirmation order passed by the First Appellate Court.

3. Having perused the material available on record, it is a dispute between the Document Writer and an Advocate. and this issue is in existence from 2014 to till date. The Trial Court having considered the evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that very allegation made against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC is not proved. The Trial Court considering the evidence of P.W.2 in paragraph No.21 comes to the conclusion that evidence of P.W.2 not inspires the confidence of the Court and so also, the document of Ex.P2-mahazar. The Trial Court also considered the evidence of P.W.6, who categorically says that he did not disclose anything about causing life threat and also appreciated the evidence of P.W.5, who conducted spot mahazar and comes to the conclusion that complainant has not made out the case.

4. The order of the Trial Court is challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.25/2017. The First Appellate Court also reassessed the evidence of P.W.1 in paragraph No.42, who categorically deposes that he visited his office, entrusted work to his workers and when he was proceeding towards his car, the accused along with his 6 to 7 followers wrongfully restrained him. Having taken note of evidence of P.W.1, comes to the conclusion that the place of offence would be before his office, but nothing prevented P.W.1 to say exact place of offence either in his oral evidence or in his complaint Ex.P1 and case is also registered only against one person. But, the evidence is that accused along with 6 to 7 persons wrongfully restrained him and the same is also considered and reassessed by the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.46 with regard to the date of incident as well as work entrusted to the workers. The First Appellate Court also taken note of evidence of P.W.2 in paragraph No.47, who categorically says that P.W.1 hurriedly rushed towards his car. At that time, the accused and his 6 to 7 followers came there and wrongfully restrained P.W.1. This say of P.W.2 is not in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.1. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, even extracted the evidence in paragraph Nos.51 to 54. Hence, comes to the conclusion that testimony of P.W.3 also not inspires the confidence of this Court to believe the case of prosecution. The same is confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

5. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have not taken note of gravity of offence and also the nature of the case, since it is a serious nature of offence committed by the first respondent against the petitioner scolding in vulgar language. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that both the Courts have taken note of evidence available on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and not committed any error. The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 ought to have been taken note and the same is not properly appreciated.

7. Having heard respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, the allegation against the accused is that he along with 6 to 7 followers wrongfully restrained the complainant and scolded him in filthy language and caused life threat. Having considered the material on record, when the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken note of evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW3 and the First Appellate Court having considered that evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that the evidence of the said witnesses not inspires the confidence of the Court. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition. However, it is made clear that the revision petitioner is a Document Writer and Accused No.1 is an Advocate, who is practicing and instead of wasting their time for all these silly or trivial matters, they can concentrate on their profession and do good work for the Society to remember their service.

With these observation, the revision petition is disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal