Karnataka High Court
Smt B R Premakumari vs Supraja Credit Co-Op Society Ltd on 17 July, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KAWNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17?" DAY OF' JULY, 2009
. 1, "if
ax kg
THE }~ION'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.AIf.>i W"
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5516(2€} 7 H M H' 1'
BETWEEN:
S1111; B.R.Pm .
W] 0 Satish (late),
Aged about 34 years,
140.792, am Main Road,
2114 'B' Cross, 3"' Stage,
3"' Block, Basaveswaranagazr,
Baa:1ga1orc--S60 079.
....PET!'I'IONER
(By sri.H.%..9.,i;;e:1a§i1{ar;";Ad+:i§----
Supraja Credit' Ca--Op§ -~ Society 'Ltd;
No.658/2A;2***3 Floor,' "
Sri Krishna Ccxmplex; .
Basettypet, M.M.Lm:1e,f
4_ .. V.Chickp-:{t Cross, .. _ «V
Bz1ngalore~%.ES6U'~- O53, " """ "
"Rep; 'bYT130P¢§§F?*V€'<3_a.
As§si;t~;tant-_"=._ ~
. « RESPONDENT
' -V '(By Sri.Shivakumar Kallur, Adv.) . This Criminal Pciitirm is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. pmyingto quash the cntim pzwdings including the procedure Ti .. "a'c1opted by the xxm Add}. {Z'..M.M., Bangalore City, in T '£,'.C-;No.2759S/2006 fmm 10.9.2006 onwards. This petition coming on for admissien this day, the Ciourl:
made thta following:
gafias Respondfint is the compiainant. He filed a privau: complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the qffence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Act. In support of the complaint, his sworn moulded and documents connected \as{1';1V1>'thc = 2 produced. < M V
2. The learned Magist1*ate _l'3'y_hié" oxficx 1da§§di#%?L1é,9;%12éc«3::%L» directed the registration ' of issue summons in terms 0.!' the .
'On perusal and the d:}ézi!a.1:§Ee ré¢m2s,.,ghe czéfhpitiinant has made out}; the accused and there"a._rLé¥ sujiiziéfgi grounds to proceed "zha_ 'aa::séd jar the agenm punishable .S'.:ofIV;£'A.«t51._.kI.:=~~z the result, I proceed to pass ' 2 _fb?Iowing order.
" [T " ORDER the case against the accused as V 5:. 'En i~é;.};is:er No.3 U/S138 ofN.1ZAcf and issue .% , to accused, returnabfe by 16.1.2007.' "3'. Learned Magistrate while exercising power under T Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is required to consider the avcnncnts in D» ihc complaint, sworn statement and the material and has to véfifi 2 -3- satisfy himself as to whether there is a prima facie case made out against the accused to proceed.
4. En this case. no doubt the sworn statement is but the learned Magstrate in a casual way etfen considering the material, Without even averments in the complaint, has aiet Vt sufictient material grounds to purpose of rccoxding sworn stategoienh L' and production of docu;;;.onts,VAV__ito:' " facie conclusion that. there is to the accused and the order of istszzing the satisfaction and grotmda: not Inferring to the to the material, has ordered for issue of take cognizance, the facts must . .oonstitt'ttc; an ofienoe, _____ H _ ' 5. NO' taking cognizance does not require an order to be poéseti; the leamed Magishate Wants to proceed hatizoused by issuing summons. it necessarily H 'A eonsidemtion of the case of the complainant and to vneaéons for his satisfaction, though not elaborate reasons, T b'ut"jp1'ima facie reasons for his conclusion. It is seen that, in a easual way. the orders are passed for issuing summons, some 9%:
-4-
times stereo type." This is not the object of Section 264 of the Cr.P.(3. Section 204 of Cr.P.C. mentions that; 'If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking > cognizance afar: offence there is sufficient ground: .. A for proceeding. and the case appears to summons case, he shall issue his ,fer:f_f the attendance of the a.ac:used....V._; "'" . A " " x V
6." Section 204 of Cr.P.C. requires form an opinion and must also ground for pxvoceeding againet the eéiec1n§1seV€i';e. _ ._
7. This CourtAi_1as heldihat,' eworn statement means, the be recorded by the Mflgistrxate, not " avit. The afidavit does not partake the Kof. statement. The object of 4', usvzorn eta-.te1:11en':1l;is, for the purpose of satisfaction of :who records the sworn statement to find out t11e«f_¢::v._' facie case made out. Acceptm.g' the V VV afiidawiit 'thejkplaee of sworn statement is deprecated by this A' '8--.A""I'l1e learned Mafistrate neither has applied his mind, T 1}or~has considered the material, not has formed an oyinien, nor fias zecorded the sworn statement. It is in this factum, the matter requires reconsideration by the learned Magistmte.
éwfl»
9. Accordingly. this petition is allowed. The impupcd order of registering the complaint. issuing summons is vqtja$h;:d.- Matter is remitted to the learned Magstrate to ihé' stage of recording of sworn statement. *AP/ «