Karnataka High Court
Swetha W/O. Manjunath Nidagund vs Manjuanth S/O. Mahadevappa Nidagundi on 24 July, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101048/2014
BETWEEN :
SMT. SWETHA
W/O. MANJUNATH NIDAGUNDI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC:NIL
R/O. NEAR ROTARY SCHOOL,
JAMBHAGI CHAWL,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI : S L MATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. MANJUANTH
S/O. MAHADEVAPPA NIDAGUNDI
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: SENIOR SERVICE MANAGER
IN VST TRACTOR COMPANY
R/O. PARVATI NILAYA,
SAPTAPUR, JAYANAGAR,
DHARWAD
2. SMT. SRINIDHI @ ARPANA
W/O. MANJUNATH NIDAGUNDI
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. SAPTAPUR, JAYANAGAR,
DHARWAD ... RESPONDENTS
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2014 BY SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, HAVERI, IN UNNUMBERED PRIVATE
COMPLAINT NO.___/2014 AND MAY KINDLY BE REFER THE MATTER
TO OTHER INVESTIGATION AGENCY OTHER THAN POLICE OR
DIRECT THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. TO TAKE THE
COGNIZANCE SO MOTO WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE S.H.O.
HAVERI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.
2. The present petition is filed by petitioner seeking for quashing of the order passed by learned Senior Civil Judge & C.J.M. Haveri, dated 09.05.2014 in referring a private complaint filed by petitioner for investigation and report to the S.H.O. Haveri, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity).
3. The petitioner appears to have filed a private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian 3 Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity) against two accused persons and the same was referred to police for investigation. The ground urged before this Court is that the police may not properly investigate the matter and the Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance and enquired into the matter by himself. Therefore, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the order referring the complaint to police is to be set aside and the direction has to be issued to the Magistrate to go on with the matter after taking cognizance against the accused persons.
4. Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and also Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate either to take cognizance by himself or if the Magistrate is of the opinion that the matter has to be investigated by the police and he requires the assistance of police for investigation, then he can refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said provision creates unfettered jurisdiction to the Magistrate. There is no mandatory provision under Cr.P.C. 4 mandating the Magistrate to take cognizance whenever the private complaint is filed and he shall proceed with the case by taking cognizance. The apprehension of the petitioner herein is that the police may not investigate the matter properly, at this stage said apprehension is baseless. Hence, the said ground cannot be considered at this stage by the Court without any material on record. Hence, I do not find any strong reason to entertain this petition. Therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed. Even if it appears that the petitioner's apprehension is true and the police does not properly investigate the matter, the doors of Court are not shut for the petitioner. If the police file any such report then the same can be challenged by the petitioner by leading evidence before the Court. Hence, on any count the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/