Karnataka High Court
M.R. Sohail Ahmad vs Shri.O.K. Tajuddin on 16 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100035/2017
BETWEEN:
M.R. SOHAIL AHMAD,
S/O ABDUL REHMAN,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: VALATURE VILLAGE,
TQ: GUDIYATHAM,
DIST: VELLORE,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
SHIVAJI CHOWK,
JAMKHANDI-587301,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S D BABLADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHRI O.K. TAJUDDIN,
S/O ABDULKAYUM,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PALARU STREET,
KULIDIGAI VILLAGE-635813,
MELPATTI POST,
TQ: GUDIYATHAM,
DIST: VELLORE (T.N.)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MANJUNATH A KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BAGALKOT SITTING AT JAMKHANDI IN CRIMINAL
REVISION PETITION NO.10 OF 2012 DATED 18.10.2016
CONFIRMING ACCEPTANCE OF 'B' REPORT BY ADDL. CJM
JAMAKHANDI IN P.C.NO.17 OF 2007 DATD 22.12.2010,
PASSED BY ADDL. CJM, JAMKHANDI AND AFFORD
PETITIONER TO FILE OBJECTION TO 'B' REPORT AND
DIRECT ADDL. CJM TO PROCEED WITH CASE AS PER LAW
AND COST OF PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both sides it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This is the petition filed by petitioner/ complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to allow the petition and consequently set aside the order passed by the I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamkhandi in Criminal Revision Petition No.17/2007 dated 18.10.2016 confirming acceptance of 'B' report by Addl.C.J.M., Jamkhandi in P.C.No.17/2007.
:3:
3. Brief facts of the prosecution the petitioner/ complainant filed the complaint before the Addl.C.J.M., Jamkhandi for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C. referred the matter to Dy.S.P., invoking Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. After conducting investigation, the police filed the 'B' summary report before the concerned JMFC Court. Then the matter was posted for protest petition if any by the complainant. after giving the opportunity on the last occasion as the counsel for the petitioner/complainant as well as the complainant both are absent 'B' summary report, which accepted by the JMFC Court and the proceedings were closed. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant challenged the order of the JMFC Court accepting the 'B' summary report closing the proceedings by preferring the revision petition before the I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot to sit at :4: Jamkhandi in Criminal Revision Petition No.10/2012. But the revisional court disposed of the revision on 18.10.2016, wherein the revisional court dismissed the revision petition accepting the order of the learned JMFC. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/ complainant is before this Court in this petition.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-complainant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that as the counsel for the petitioner/ complainant as well as the complainant both were absent before the court, learned JMFC ought to have given one more adjournment to submit the protest petition against the 'B' summary report. Therefore, he submitted that sufficient opportunity was not given and wrongly it was taken as protest petition not filed proceedings taken as closed. Further it is his contention :5: that challenging the order when the revision petition was preferred before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court no doubt dismissed the revision petition, but while dismissing the revision petition the learned Sessions Judge entered to the merits of the case also, which is illegal and not sustainable in law. It is his contention that if the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not modified or set aside those observations of the learned Sessions Judge will be binding on the complainant in any other proceedings. Hence, it is his contention in that view of the matter the petition be allowed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge so also the learned JMFC are to be set aside giving opportunity to the petitioner/complainant to file his protest petition before the JMFC and to contest the matter on merits.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused made the submission that :6: looking to the number of adjournments given by the learned JMFC Court after filing 'B' summary report for filing protest petition 12 adjournments were given by the JMFC Court and it is on the 13th adjourned date as the complainant as well as the counsel for the complainant both remained absent, the JMFC Court taken protest petition as not filed and proceedings as closed. Counsel submitted that looking to the very order sheet itself and the number of adjournments inspite of giving sufficient opportunity protest petition was not filed. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order of the learned JMFC. So far as the order of the learned Sessions Judge is concerned, the learned counsel made the submission that the order is in accordance with law, it does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, the counsel submitted to reject the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, order of the learned JMFC accepting the 'B' :7: summary report and closing the proceedings so also the order of the learned Sessions Judge passed in the revision petition. So far as the order of the learned Magistrate is concerned as it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused, sufficient opportunity was given to the complainant to file the protest petition. Inspite of that he has not filed the protest petition during 12 adjourned dates and on the 13th adjourned date, it was taken as closed. I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned JMFC. So far as the order of the learned Sessions Judge is concerned dismissal of the revision petition, I do not find illegality in the said order, but so far as the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge in the body of the order touching the merits of the case and in this connection learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein is justified in making his submission that only the question was whether the order of the JMFC accepting 'B' summary report and closing the proceedings was :8: legal or illegal, there was no necessity touching to the merits of the case of the complainant. Therefore, though the dismissal of the revision petition is in accordance with law, but the observations made on Page No.8 and 9 of the said revision petition touching to the merits of the case, they are totally unwarranted and it is made clear by this Court the said observation of the learned Sessions Judge regarding merits of the case of the complainant are not at all binding on the complainant. if there are any other proceedings or collateral proceedings, same is to be considered independently without influenced by the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge. With this clarification, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK