Mr. K.H. Khan vs State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr. K.H. Khan vs State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2020

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

                           1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

                         BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.141 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
MR.K.H.KHAN,
S/O NAZEER AHMED KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.28, 9TH CROSS, OFF R.V.ROAD,
2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 11.
                                          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)


AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THOUGH SIDDAPURA PS,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 01.
                                         ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.R.D.RENUKARADYA, HCGP)
       THIS   CRIMINAL   PETITION   IS   FILED   UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 17.08.2019 IN CR.NO.39/2019 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
                               2

     THIS     CRIMINAL    PETITION        COMING   ON    FOR
ADMISSION,     THIS   DAY,    THE        COURT   MADE    THE
FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the respondent-State.

2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for setting aside the order dated 17.08.2019 in Crime No.39/2019 passed by the II Additional ACMM, Bengaluru.

3. Petitioner being the complainant, had filed a complaint, in pursuance of which, a FIR has been registered on 03.04.2019 by Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru. Thereafter, on investigation, the respondent- Police had filed 'B' report and fixed the next date of hearing as 17.08.2019. On 17.08.2019, it was reported to the Court that filing of 'B' report had been intimated to the complainant over phone and accepting the same, the learned Magistrate held that complainant was not 3 interested in opposing the 'B' report and closed the case for time being.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such notice over phone, as intimated by the jurisdictional police is not recognized under law and in fact, he was not intimated over the phone. If he had been intimated so, the petitioner would have appeared and opposed the 'B' report by filing necessary protest application.

5. Having considered the above facts and on perusal of order dated 17.08.2019, it is seen that the learned trial Judge though accepted the service of 'B' report on the petitioner, closed the case only for time being. Thus, the petitioner would always have remedy to file protest memo/application in the matter, since the case is not closed completely.

6. However, it is made clear that in the interest of justice, so as to not delay the proceedings further, the order passed by II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crime No.39/2019, dated 17.08.2019 is set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to file necessary protest memo/application in the above proceedings which will be considered by the Magistrate in accordance with law.

7. The petitioner is directed to file necessary protest memo/application by 24.02.2020 without any further notice. The learned Magistrate is directed to take up the matter and dispose of such protest memo/application within a period of sixty days thereafter in accordance with law.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE SB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court