A B Ramesh Bandi Siddegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 September, 2012

[Cites 5, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

A B Ramesh Bandi Siddegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 September, 2012

Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das

                                  1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

            DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

                               BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

                 CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5211/2012

BETWEEN :
--------------

A B RAMESH BANDI
SIDDEGOWDA
S/O. BANDI SIDDEGOWDA
AGED 46 YEARS
MEMBEROF LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, SRIRANGAPATNA
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY
R/O. ARAKERE VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DIST. 571 401.                     ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. G SURESH, ADV.)

AND :
-------

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANDYA RURAL P.S.
MANDYA - 571 401.                         ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri. P KARUNAKAR, HCGP)
                         ---
                                       2




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 Cr.P.C. WITH A PRAYER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 02.12.2009 PASSED BY THE JMFC, MANDYA, IN C.C.
No. 726/2009 AND ETC.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

                              ORDER

In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 76/2009 pending on the file of JMFC, Mandya.

2. The petitioner contested from Srirangapatna assembly constituency in the month of May, 2008 to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. The Election Officer of this constituency lodged a complaint on 02.05.2008 with the respondent police alleging that the petitioner has violated the code of conduct. The jurisdictional Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence on 02.12.2009 and issued the process. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the maximum sentence under the alleged offence under Section 188 and 286 IPC is only six months imprisonment on each count. Under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. there is a bar for taking cognizance of the offence beyond one year for the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. In the instant case the alleged offence had taken place on 01.05.2008. The complaint was lodged on 02.05.2008. The charge sheet was filed on 02.12.2009 and on the same day the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence. Thus after lapse of one year and five months cognizance is taken. On the face of it the Trial Court committed an illegality in taking cognizance of the offence. In identical circumstances this Court in Crl.P. No. 6637/2011 vide order dated 08.12.2011 quashed the proceedings.

4. Accordingly, the following;


                           ORDER

      i.     The petition is hereby allowed.
                                      4




       ii.    The proceedings in C.C. No. 726/2009 pending on the

              file of JMFC, Mandya is hereby quashed.

iii. The charges levelled against the petitioner are hereby dropped. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

LRS.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court