Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt R Sowbhagyamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 August, 2018

Author: R.B Budihal

Bench: R.B Budihal

                            1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

     WRIT PETITION Nos.35667-672/2015 (GM-RES)



BETWEEN:

1.   Smt.R.Sowbhagyamma
     W/o K.Sambasivan
     Aged about 58 years
     Aradhana, R/o 54/B, 4th Block, 9th Main
     Rajajinagar
     Bangalore - 560 010.

2.   Sri K.Sambasivan
     S/o T.S.Kuppuswamy
     Aged about 66 years (Senior Citizen)
     Aradhana, R/o 54/B, 4th Block, 9th Main
     Rajajinagar
     Bangalore - 560 010.

3.   Sri Maregowda
     S/o Chikkahanumaiah
     Aged about 46 years
     R/o 4/2,
     5th Cross, Pipeline, Cholurpalya
     Vijayanagar
     Bangalore - 560 040.

4.   Sri A.Keshava
     S/o G.A.Muniswamy
     Aged about 67 years
                                  2

       R/o 299, III Main,
       Prakashnagar
       Bangalore - 560 021.
5.     Sri A.Balaraman
       S/o Adimoola Mudaliyar
       Aged about 46 years
       R/o No.4/2, 5th Cross
       Pipeline, Cholurpalya
       Vijayanagara
       Bangalore - 560 040.

6.     Sri L.Devaraj
       S/o Lakshmana Murthy
       No.299, 3rd Main, Prashanthnagar
       Bangalore - 560 010.                   ...Petitioners

(By Sri Srinivasan K.R., Adv.)



AND:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Represented by
       The Principal Secretary (Home Dept.)
       Vidhana Soudha
       Bangalore -01.

2.     The Police Sub-Inspector
       Vemagal Police Station
       Vemagal,
       Kolar Taluk & District - 563 157.

3.     R.Sadananda
       Head Master, Govt. Model Higher
       Primary School, Vemagal and
       R/o Veena Nilaya
       S/o Late D.N.Rudrappa
       Aged 54 years
       Near Siddeshwara Kalyana Mantapa
                               3

      Vemagal, Vemagal Hobli
      Kolar District - 563 157.              ...Respondents

(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP. For R1 & R2;
Sri Umesh B.N., Adv. for R3)


      These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying
to quash the order at Annex-N dated 4.12.2014 of the
learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar in counter
complaint PCR No.601/2014 filed the R-3, in referring the
said complaint to the jurisdictional police for investigation
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

      These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing this day,
the Court made the following:


                          ORDER

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying the Court to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order at Annexure-N dated 4.12.2014 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar, in PCR No.601/2014 filed by respondent No.3 making a request for referring the said complaint to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and also to quash FIR filed by respondent No.2 4 in crime No.0017/2015 dated 13.1.2015 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar at Annexure-P and to dismiss the complaint filed by respondent No.3 in counter complaint PCR No.601/2014 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar.

2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondent No.3-complainant so also heard learned SPP for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the reference of the case to the police for investigation, the police have already investigated the matter and filed B-summary report in the case. After filing of the B-summary report, even for more than 1½ years, the complainant has not filed protest petition. Hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow the 5 petitions and to quash the proceedings by dismissing the complaint.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-complainant submitted that regarding filing of B- summary report, the Court below issued the notice subsequently and therefore, the complainant will file the protest petition. But, he agreed that, so far, such petition is not filed. The learned counsel further submitted that no verifying affidavit about the allegation made in the complaint is also filed.

5. The learned Additional SPP submitted that after investigation by the police, the case is pending at that stage itself and no protest petition is filed to the B- summary report.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petitions, the contents of the private complaint filed 6 before the Court below and the statement of witnesses produced by the petitioners said to have been recorded by the police during investigation.

7. Looking to the prayer made in the private complaint filed by the complainant, he made request to the Magistrate Court to refer the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation by the jurisdictional police. I have perused the contents of the private complaint. The allegations are made as against the petitioners herein that they have committed the alleged offence. The private complaint is not accompanied by the verifying affidavit of the allegations made in the complaint. Whenever such an application is made by the complainant seeking reference of the same to the police for investigation, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UP AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2015 SC 1758, verifying affidavit is to be filed 7 along with the complaint. Even admittedly, according to respondent No.3, no such affidavit is filed.

8. Perusing the materials, it goes to show that the police submitted B-summary report and even though such report is submitted about 1½ years back, the complainant has not filed any protest petition till now. Apart from that whenever a request is made by the complainant to refer the matter to the police under Section 156(3), the requirements as stated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA's case are also not complied with the case. Therefore, the petitioners have made out the case to allow the petitions.

9. The petitions are accordingly allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein are quashed and the complaint is dismissed. 8

10. In view of the appeal allowed as above, I.A. No.1/2015 does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cs/-

Ct:MHP