IN TI IF 111011 COL :RT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED TIllS TILE I&hI DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011 BEFORE TI-IF HON’BLF MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITIoN No.10338/2011 Connected itIi CRiMINAL PETITION No.10528/20 1 I In Crl.P.No.10338/201 I BEEWEEN: Basavaraj 1-ladimani Age: 43 years. 0cc: Advocate. Rio.Devageri. Tq: & fist: Ilaveri. PETITIONER (By Shri Lasman T. Mantagani. Advocate.) ANI): I’hc State of Karnataka. Represented by Police Sub-Inspector. I iaveri Cit> Police Station. Ilaveri. Dist: Haven. .RESPONIWNT (13> Shri Vinayak S. Kulkarni. iligh Court Ciovemmern Pleader.) This Criminal Pelition is tiled under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside the order dated 306 ‘2010 passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and CJM. Ilaveri. in C.C.No.292O06 on an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. £ 2 In Crl.P.No. 10528/201 1 BETWEEN: 1. Sri.Nagaraj s/o.Ramappa Malagi @ Malager Age: 40 years. 0cc: Advocate, Rio. Dist: Haven. 2. Sri.Basavaraj S/o.Hullappa l-Iediggond Age: 38 years. 0cc: Kooli. RJo.Devagiri. Tq: & Dist: Haven. 3. Sri.Ashok Mother Ratnavva Marennavar Age: 35 years. 0cc: Social Work. R/o.Ambedkar Nagar. Haven. Dist: Haven. PETITIONERS (By Shri Laxman T. Mantagani. Advocate.) AND: The State of Karnataka. Represented by Police Sub-Inspector. Haven City Police Station. Haver. Dist: Haven. RESPONDENT (By Shri Vinayak S. Kulkarni. High Court Government Pleader.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside the order dated 30/6/2010 passed by the PrI. Civil Judge and CJM. Haveni, in C.C.No.29/2006 on an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. These petitions coming on for admission this day. the Court made the following: 6 3 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. These petitions are considered together as they raised identical issues. 3. ‘[he lbcts briefly stated arc that. certain landed property hich is subject matter of the acquisition for the purpose of putting up construction for the District Judge. Haven District and the jurisdictional l’ahasildar who was involved in the acquisition proceedings were said to have been obstructed by several interested persons and criminal proceedings had been initiated against those persons. In the course of those proceedings. the police had flied IT report. Hoever. on further prosecution the concerned Tahasildar had named the present petitioners along with others. Though the petitioners had been namcd in the First Information Report. their names did not figure in the charge-shcet and it is in that circumstance that the Tahasildar in his evidence before the Court having named the petitioner. the Court had proceeded to include the petitioners and others as additional accused in the case. It is in that background that the present petitions are filed. S 4 4. I he learned counsel 1kw the petitioners i ould contend that the petitioner is a practicing ad ocate and in ie’ of his persistent objections a a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled I ribes Welfare Committee in the District and ho had raised a oice of protet in respect of certain irregularities shich sas not to the li ing of the I ahasildar and caused him much embarrassment and in order to reaL engeance against the petitioners that the present proceedings ha e been misused by the [ahasildar to implicate the petitioners in these proceedings and that there is no basis and substance in the allegation against the petitioners. 5. In the light ol Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. l93. shereby the petitioners sould hate full opportunit> of defending themsel es including the opportunity to seek discharge if there i no case made out against the petitioners. there cannot be said to be an irregularit> in the petitioners ha’ ing been named as accused. Sotw ithstanding that it was at the instance of the concerned I aliasildar ho according to the learned counsel for the petitioners had an ‘ae to grinr against the petitioners. I his shall be raised h) thc petitioners at the appropriate stage beibre the trial Court itseiC and it uould be eii iithin. his right to seek c discharge if the> could make out the circumstances 11w the (‘nun’s consideration. .\eeordingl>. without prtjudiee to the petitioners case as contended. these petitions stand disposed of. Sc/... JUDGE Mrk -