Karnataka High Court
Mr Vinay R Kulkarni vs State Of Karnataka By on 22 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 12.12.2024
Pronounced on : 22.01.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11719 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. VINAY R. KULKARNI
S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
MLA, DHARWAD URBAN DISTRICT
R/AT GUMGOL, NAVALGUND
DHARWAD - 581 201.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SUNIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CBI/ACB/BLR
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING
COGNIZANCE BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DHARWAD IN PCR NO.337/2020 DATED 04.12.2020, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 195-A OF IPC, WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE
FILE OF LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-82) IN SPECIAL C.C.NO.1856/2021.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.12.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order
dated 04-12-2020 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Dharwad in P.C.R.No.337 of 2020 taking cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 195-A of the Indian Penal Code which is
now pending in Special Case No.1856 of 2021 before the LXXXI
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
2. Heard Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
3
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The history that is germane to consider the issue in the case
at hand dates back to 15-06-2016. On 15-06-2016 a crime comes
to be registered against unknown persons in Crime No.135 of 2016
in connection with the murder of one Yogesh Gowda, a political
representative of the area. On completion of investigation, the
Dharwad Sub-urban Police submitted charge sheet against six
persons for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
120B, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. The case was then
committed to the Court of Sessions where it is numbered as S.C.50
of 2017. The trial against those six persons commenced. The
Government of Karnataka entrusted the complaint for conduct of
further investigation to the hands of the Central Bureau of
Investigation ('CBI').
4. During the course of investigation, the respondent/CBI is
said to have found that the charge sheeted accused were not the
ones who had actually assaulted and executed the murder of
Yogesh Gowda but they were others. It was also found that accused
4
No.1 who had surrendered had arranged eight other persons to
commit the murder from another place and they were the actual
assailants. The CBI then submitted its charge sheet. It was found
that the eyewitnesses to the incident Sri Dattatreya, Sri Anand,
Sri Mohan, Sri Vinayak and Kum. Lakshmi, CW-2 to CW-5 had
turned hostile to the prosecution in their examination before the
Court, which had began to try S.C.No.50 of 2017. It was then
allegedly found that those witnesses were intimidated by the
petitioner and accused Nos. 2 to 8 prior to their examination as eye
witnesses before the Court.
5. The allegation was that all those eye witnesses who were
intimidated to turn hostile were all housed in a particular resort and
the petitioner had visited the said resort at Goa. Based upon such
intimidation which was said to have revealed in the further
investigation by the CBI, the Investigating Officer placed a request
before the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 120B, 341, 342 and 195A of the IPC. The
learned Magistrate, before whom the said requisition was placed by
the CBI, took cognizance as obtaining under Section 190(2) of the
5
Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 195A of the IPC
only against the petitioner and 7 other accused persons. Since the
petitioner was a former Minister, the matter was transferred to the
Special Court and the Special Court registers Special Case No.1856
of 2021. The petitioner now aggrieved by the said order of taking
of cognizance by the concerned Court on 4-12-2020 is knocking at
the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
6. The learned senior counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh appearing for
the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is a
jurisdictional error in the Court of the learned Magistrate taking
cognizance of the offence under Section 195-A of the IPC. The
procedure stipulated under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., which is
mandatory is completely given a go-bye. It is his submission that it
is only the concerned Court before which the proceedings were on
must take cognizance of the offence under Section 195-A IPC. A
complaint cannot be filed before an altogether different Court which
was not privy of the evidence or any proceedings before it.
Therefore, the order of taking cognizance without the Court having
6
jurisdiction would cut at the root of the matter. He would seek
quashment of entire proceedings.
7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing
for the CBI Sri P. Prasanna Kumar would refute the submissions to
contend that for an offence under Section 195-A of the IPC there
can be a complaint by any eye witness or any person before any
forum which need not be that it should be by those persons or
before the particular Court. He would seek to place reliance upon a
judgment of the High Court of Calcutta reported in HOMNATH
NIROULA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL1.
8. The learned senior counsel would join issue to contend that
it is not the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta that would bind
the issue, but the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
M.R. AJAYAN v. STATE OF KERALA2, covers the issue where the
Apex Court considers this very issue and holds that it is only that
Court, after following the procedure, can initiate proceedings
against the person.
1
2024 SCC OnLine Cal 7323
2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3373
7
9. A coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following
interim order on 05-01-2024:
"Learned counsel Sri.C.H.Hanumantharya appearing
for the accused petitioner submits that one Mr.M.Gangadhara
Shetty has been appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor,
learned CBI counsel submits that he was not aware of this
development and therefore the matter be adjourned to
revert after having some conference. He also assures the
Court that the proceedings in the Court below shall not be
precipitated.
Call this matter week after next.
Petitioner to comply with office objections and this
order to be released only after compliance and not
otherwise."
When the matter came up for consideration before this Bench,
elaborate interim order, after hearing the parties, was passed on
22-08-2024. The said order reads as follows:
"Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.V. Nagesh
appearing for the petitioner.
The petitioner calls in question an order of the learned
Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence punishable under
Section 195-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
IPC). The learned Senior Counsel would submit that Section
195-A of IPC the offence deals with threatening a person to
give false evidence. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the
procedure for an enquiry on an offence under Section 195 is
stipulated in Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short Cr.P.C.).
Section 195-A of IPC reads as follows:
8
"195. Giving or fabricating false evidence
with intent to procure conviction of offence
punishable with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment - Whoever gives or fabricates false
evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing
it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any
person to be convicted of an offence which [by
the law for the time being in force in [India] is
not capital, but punishable with [imprisonment
for life], or imprisonment for a term of seven
years or upwards, shall be punished as a person
convicted of that offence would be liable to be
punished."
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
"340. Procedure in cases mentioned
in section 195. - (1) When upon an application
made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court
is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of
justice that an inquiry should be made into any
offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section
(1) of section 195, which appears to have been
committed in or in relation to a proceeding in
that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after
such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks
necessary,-
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in
writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first
class having jurisdiction;
such magistrate, or if the alleged
offence is non-bailable and the
Court thinks it necessary so to do,
send the accused in custody to
such Magistrate; and
(d) bind over any person to appear
and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by
sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in
any case where that Court has neither made a
9
complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that
offence nor rejected an application for the
making of such complaint, be exercised by the
Court to which such former Court is subordinate
within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section
195.
(3) A complaint made under this section
shall be signed. -
(a) where the Court making the
complaint is a High Court, by such
officer of the Court as the Court
may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding
officer of the Court or by such
officer of the Court as the Court
may authorize in writing in this
behalf.
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same
meaning as in section 195."
The only difference that has cropped up in the year
2009 by way of an amendment to the Cr.P.C. is Section 195-
A coming in, by way of the amendment, it reads as follows:
"195A. Procedure for witnesses in case of
threatening, etc.- A witness or any other person may file
a complaint in relation to an offence under section 195A
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
Section 195-A of the Cr.P.C. permits a witness or any
other person to file a complaint in relation to offence
punishable under Section 195-A of IPC supra.
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that
merely because permission is granted to a witness or any
person to file a complaint, the procedure under Section 340
of Cr.P.C. cannot be given a go by for an offence punishable
under Section 195 or 195-A of IPC.
There is merit in what the learned Senior Counsel
would contend. If the provisions of the statute quoted supra,
is pitted against the order that is passed by the concerned
10
Court taking cognizance of the offence, it would prima facie
fall fowl of the statute. The learned Senior Counsel would
further submit that the proceedings are to be before the
concerned Court. The concerned Court in the case at hand is
the Court of Session, the Special Court dealing with the
matter. But the complainant -CBI in the case at hand
registers a complaint before the learned Magistrate at
Dharwad and cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate.
In the light of the lack of jurisdiction at the hands of
the Court that has taken cognizance as also the procedure
under Section 340 not being followed even to its semblance,
I deem it appropriate to stall further proceedings before the
concerned Court, qua the impugned offence, till the next
date of hearing.
List on 05-09-2024."
The afore-mentioned interim order is in subsistence even today.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
11. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue
now lies in a narrow compass. The facts that led to registration of
complaint before the Court of the learned Magistrate are narrated
hereinabove. The impugned order of taking cognizance reads as
follows:
11
"ORDER
"Acting under Section 190(2)(a) of CrPC, cognizance is
taken for the alleged offence punishable under Section 195-A
of IPC against the accused No.1 to 8.
Hence, office is directed to close the PCR and register
the criminal case against the accused No.1 to 8 and issue
summons to accused No. 1 to 8.
Further office is directed to keep the CD in safe
custody till further order.
For: Appearance of accused
Call on 2-01-2021.
Sd/-
SHRI.KURANI KANT DHAKU,
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & PRINCIPAL JMFC,
DHARWAD."
Accused Nos. 1 to 8 against whom cognizance is taken are as
follows:
1) "SHRI VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI
2) BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI,
3) VIKAS RAMESH KULBURGI,
4) SHRI. ERANNA NAGAPPA MALIWAD,
5) BASAYYA THIKRAKAYA HIREMATH,
6) BABU NINGAPPA KATAGI,
7) AMITH RANGAPPA DODAMANI
8) LOGENDRA S/O CHELVA KUMAR ALIAS BABU VK."
The cognizance is taken on a complaint preferred before the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad in P.C.R.No.337 of 2020.
Therefore, it was taking of cognizance upon a private complaint
12
registered for an offence under Section 195-A of the IPC. Section
195-A of the IPC reads as follows:
"195-A. Threatening any person to give false
evidence.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to
his person, reputation or property or to the person or
reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with
intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both;
and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in
consequence of such false evidence, with death or
imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who
threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and
sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such
innocent person is punished and sentenced."
For an offence to become punishable under Section 195A,
procedure is stipulated under the Cr.P.C., as Section 195A of the
IPC punishes a person who threatens a person to give false
evidence before the Court. Therefore, what is required to be
noticed is the procedure for such punishment. It is obtaining in
Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. reads as
follows:
"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section
195. - (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf
or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in
the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into
any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in
relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be,
13
in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such
preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first-class having
jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of
the accused before such Magistrate, or if the
alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court
thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in
custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give
evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1)
in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court
has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in
respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the
making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to
which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning
of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be
signed. -
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High
Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court
may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the
Court or by such officer of the Court as the
Court may authorize in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as
in section 195."
14
Section 340 deals with procedure to be followed for Section 195. In
the year 2009 an amendment springs to the Cr.P.C., by
introduction of Section 195A. Section 195A of the Cr.P.C., deals
with procedure for witnesses in case of threatening. A witness or
any other person may file a complaint in relation to an offence
under Section 195A of the IPC. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.,
mandates a procedure by which an application should be made
before the Court before which the proceedings have happened and
if that Court is of the opinion that in the best interest of justice an
inquiry should be made into any offence referred to sub-clause (b)
of sub-section (1) of Section 195 it should conduct a preliminary
inquiry and proceed further. Therefore, it is that very Court which
is empowered to entertain such complaints and proceed further in
the matter of offence punishable under Section 195A of the IPC.
12. The issue in the case at hand is with regard to
threatening of witnesses before the Court of Sessions. The
complaint is preferred before the learned Magistrate which was not
the Court before which those witnesses were examined. Therefore,
the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and
15
take cognizance of the offence. It is by now too well settled
principle of law that introduction of Section 195A in the IPC or
Section 195 in the Cr.P.C., would not obviate the procedure as
obtaining under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in its
latest judgment in the case of M.R. AJAYAN supra considers this
issue and holds as follows:
".... .... ....
20. We now proceed to examine the second issue,
which pertains to the bar of prosecution under
Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. It reads as:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful
authority of public servants, for offences against public
justice and for offences relating to documents given in
evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance--
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172
to 188 (both inclusive) of the Penal Code, 1860,
or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such
offence, or
(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit such
offence,
except on the complaint in writing of the public servant
concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate;...
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the
following sections of the Penal Code, 1860,
namely, section 193 to 196 (both inclu-
sive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive)
and 228, when such offence is alleged to have
16
been committed in, or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or
punishable under section 471, section 475 or
section 476, of the said Code, when such offence
is alleged to have been committed in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or
attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any
offence specified in sub-clause (I) or sub-clause
(ii),
except on the complaint in writing of that
Court or by such officer of the Court as that
Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or
of some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate.
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a
public servant under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) any
authority to which he is administratively subordinate
may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a
copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt
by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on
the complaint;
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be
ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has
been concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), the term
"Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and
includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central,
provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a
Court for the purposes of this section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of Sub-
Section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be
subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie
from appealable decrees or sentences of such former
Court, or in the case of a civil Court from whose
17
decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court
having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose
local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate;
Provided that--
a. where appeals lie to more than one Court, the
Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the
Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be
subordinate;
b. where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue
Court, such Court shall be deemed to be
subordinate to the civil or Revenue Court according
to the nature of the case or proceeding in
connection with which the offence is alleged to
have been committed."
21. The principles relating to prosecutions under
Section 195 Cr. P.C., as expounded by this Court
in SachidaNand Singh v. State of Bihar (3-Judge
8
Bench) ; M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana (3-Judge
Bench)9; Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (5-Judge
Bench)10; Perumal v. Janaki (2-Judge Bench)11;
and Sivamani (supra) are:
i. The procedure prescribed under Section 195 Cr.
P.C. is mandatory in nature.
ii. The Section curtails the general right of a person
and the general right of a Magistrate to register a
complaint when the offences enumerated
thereunder are committed.
iii. The Section deals with three distinct categories of
offences : (1) contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, (2) offence against public justice, and (3)
offence relating to documents given in evidence.
iv. Broadly, the scheme of the Section requires that
the offence should be such which has a direct
bearing on the discharge of lawful duties of a public
servant or has a direct correlation with the
18
proceedings in a Court of justice, affecting the
administration of justice.
v. The provision only creates a bar against taking
cognizance of an offence in certain specified
situations except upon complaint by the Court.
vi. To attract the bar under Section 195(1)(b), the
offence should have been committed when the
document was in "custodia legis" or in the custody
of the Court concerned.
vii. The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) cannot be
thought to be applied when the forgery of a
document has happened prior to its production in
Court. The bar only applies in case the enumerated
offence takes place after the production of the
document or in evidence in any Court.
viii. High Courts can exercise jurisdiction and power
enumerated under Section 195 on an application
being made to it or suo-motu, whenever the
interest of justice so demands.
ix. In such a case, where the High Court as a superior
Court directs a complaint to be filed in respect of
an offence covered under Section 195(1)(b)(i), the
bar for taking cognizance, will not apply.
22. In the instant case, the High Court, on the basis of
the above bar on taking cognizance, has quashed the order
taking cognizance and proceedings emanating therefrom. We
are of the considered view, that this approach was not
correct for the reasons set out below.
23. At this stage, we must reiterate and re-emphasize
the genesis of the proceedings in this case. On a perusal of
the FIR, it is clear that based on the letter issued by the
Kerala High Court dated 27th September, 1994 and by the
District Judge, Trivandrum, the offence was registered
against the accused persons. The criminal proceedings
clearly do not arise from a complaint by a private individual.
19
24. Elaborating the law to the attending facts,
we notice that this Court in Perumal (supra) had
observed:
"19. Therefore, all that sub-section (4) of
Section 195 says is that irrespective of the fact
whether a particular court is subordinate to
another court in the hierarchy of judicial
administration, for the purpose of exercise of
powers under Section 195(1), every appellate
Court competent to entertain the appeals either
from decrees or sentence passed by the original
Court is treated to be a court concurrently
competent to exercise the jurisdiction under
Section 195(1). The High Courts being
constitutional courts invested with the powers of
superintendence over all courts within the
territory over which the High Court exercises its
jurisdiction, in our view, is certainly a court which
can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 195(1).
In the absence of any specific constitutional
limitation of prescription on the exercise of such
powers, the High Courts may exercise such power
either on an application made to it or suomotu
whenever the interests of justice demand."
25. The above exposition came to be followed
and expanded by this Court in Sivamani (supra),
wherein it was observed:
"12. .... While the bar against cognizance of
a specified offence is mandatory, the same has to
be understood in the context of the purpose for
which such a bar is created. The bar is not
intended to take away remedy against a crime but
only to protect an innocent person against false or
frivolous proceedings by a private person. The
expression "the public servant or his
administrative superior" cannot exclude the High
Court. It is clearly implicit in the direction of the High
Court quoted above that it was necessary in the interest
of justice to take cognizance of the offence in question.
Direction of the High Court is on a par with the direction
of an administrative superior public servant to file a
complaint in writing in terms of the statutory
requirement. The protection intended by the section
20
against a private person filing a frivolous complaint is
taken care of when the High Court finds that the matter
was required to be gone into in public interest. Such
direction cannot be rendered futile by invoking Section
195 to such a situation. Once the High Court directs
investigation into a specified offence mentioned in
Section 195, bar under Section 195(1)(a) cannot be
pressed into service. The view taken by the High Court
will frustrate the object of law and cannot be sustained."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. The High Court differentiated the judgment
of this Court in Sivamani (supra), to the facts of the
case herein, stating that in this case, the final report
came to be filed on the basis of an administrative
order and not a judicial one. We are unable to agree
with the reasoning of the High Court on this aspect."
(Emphasis supplied)
Though the Apex Court holds that if it is interference with the
administration of justice by forging the document of the Court or
any other factor that finds its consideration in the said judgment,
the question of locus standi would not become applicable. The
issue in the case at hand is the Court before which the complaint
ought to have been filed. The complaint if at all to be filed was to
be filed before the Court before which it had jurisdiction to entertain
the complaint for an offence under Section 195A of the IPC and not
before a Court which did know what has happened before the other
Court. Therefore, the issue lying in this narrow compass, the
21
cognizance taken by the Court of the Magistrate would undoubtedly
be an order without jurisdiction. The very complaint in P.C.R.
No.337 of 2020 could not have been entertained by the learned
Magistrate, as the offence was under Section 195A of the IPC and
the procedure under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., cannot be lost sight
of by taking cognizance under Section 195A of the IPC. In that
light, the very complaint and the order of taking cognizance are
without jurisdiction and would resultantly be obliterated.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 04-12-2020 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad in P.C.R.No.337 of 2020 stands quashed.
Sd/-
______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA Bkp CT:MJ