Mr K V Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka By Basavanahalli ... on 7 March, 2012

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr K V Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka By Basavanahalli ... on 7 March, 2012

Bench: N.Ananda

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  E' D

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY QIWMARCH 
BEFORE :   -1% 4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE   . " 
CRIMINAL PETITION No.57..16/2007  _ - ~

BETWEEN:

1. Mr.K.V.Manjunatha  
S / 0 Mr.K.T.Veerappa I GCWda_7
Aged 47 Years  VI  1
R/ of Vijayapura Extension I
Chickmagalur.  V 

2. Mr.Vishwanatha_f"  .  _V _. Vf . 

S/0 Mr.K.%T.v;:'e,reL;":p.a,Gcw;Ia._  '

Aged 49 Years 11;. -  ~

C / 0 HareeAshiiMedI*'e'a1. St_°res 
Mallslnduer Read-«.._    - D
Chicldnagalur, "E 
3. Mrs.AhaJyaInm'a.. . ,. 

W/0. late K.T.'Vee'r_appa' 'Gowda
Aged"8_1. Years»,  '

 G_owI*i Chét1Ine].. Extension

 D' . Béisaxfajiahazlli, Chickmagalur.

 I«.Irs:N.,é*g.g"vem,'.i~~

* W'/Io Mr.\7jIsIj.wanath
Aged 44 Years
C / o..H'a;eesh Medical Stores
Mallanilur Road

2  .. AA Chickmagalur.



5. Mrs.Sujatha
W/o Mr.C.K.Nanjappa
Aged 43 Years
R/of: Gowri Channel Extension

Basavanahalli, Chiekmagalur.   "".._t_Pletitionei>5V  0'

[By Sri I.S.Pramod Chandra & Sri 

AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By Basavanahalli Police
Chickmagalur J 
Through the S.P.P.
High Court Building V V
Dr. Arnbedkar Veedhi   -- 
Bangalore. V ' V   .
2. Mrs.Vanar_na=l.a 5;V"___V  _V  
W/ o Mr.K.V.Manju'nath=fj   ;
Major ' ,  7;.   "
R / of Sattihalsi
Chiklstalla Villa'ge.._ 
Gullar;pet._Post  .V   
Chick1na._galurTaluk; ,.  0  Respondents

(By  Vijaykurynar Majage, HCGP for R1; Sri Girish

 '~ ._B.Ba'la3daVr_Ve, AdVocatev--.for' R2)

'  " .,This'petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying

 set 'as'1*c1e" th.e_l.~~order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the

learned Additlional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC,
Chic~l5maga]urf.: in C.C.No.l529/2006 (Crime No.96/2003)

'V and Consequently quash the entire proceedings in the said

 'ease.

V 'This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court

 . lInVade~t'he following:



3
ORDER

The petitioners arrayed as accused 1 C.C.No.1529/2006 pending tiial for offences if under sections 323, 498A, 504, 506v--r'/'w.34filled', V this petition to quash the proceedings} '

2. I have heard learned counselfoi' parties.

3. The II--respondenf dgeldg against petitioners, alleging The first information The police after The II-respondent filed objevctionsAlpto"7VB7_Thereafter, sworn statement was recorded andfthelleariiedliiagistrate has issued summons to accused" 1_ to in of the impugned order.

-.Afte4r*going-._through records, I find that complainant ' V Vcomplaint.

has filed to 'B' report, which is not in the form of ,1';

av. $5? ~»cm ~w,'"l,L , regard may be made to a decision relied upO.nHby'S " ' Sri Rajashekar Siri, learned Counsel_for'~--..the_:" in respondent--complainant V-Ninganalgow.da'Vv V Smt. shantavva, ILR (2000) Kai-1t 3;'i'0s':(2000 LJ 3749). It was held Vtheretnthat. it necessary to rewrite the point written in the complaint. That 'was ay.cals'e_whereinl'ini.tia.l~ly a complaint under.ﬁS€_ctlionti"fiOQ}*- had been filed, same under Section by the police, _ 4' been V submitted after inVestigatio_nl;_and0' petition was itllliwas reslplectﬂof such protest petition thatttfntsll "said that the same need notlbellat that had been earlier said. couldf-therefore, be no disputing the proposition ll'ltl1at.««'Where there is already a _gco_rnpla1'rit~--. earlier filed under Section 200, fa.-:"protest petition need not be a ' of all that has been said earlier.

7. We are, however concerned herein with " situation wherein the initial report was not to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200, Cr.P.C., but, only to the police, and it is on the police investigating into the same and submitting the 'B' report, that the complainant N rm ' &'\x asked the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a), Cr.P.C., on the basis of what he called protest application. The questionm_i's:Vp"'fr whether such a protest application is"-.no't l"

required to be in the form of complaint---witl1in*~.:: « the meaning of Section 2(:-villi), whether it will suffice if it is the "

of a protest petition such it as the one :nentior§1ed, in the earlier cases referredoto aboxl/Se,-. orto be precise, in a case like the.Alone'Ve_refei*red to in ILR (2000) Kant 3108:(2000 In other words, eVen_i_f the protest'applicfatioirjdloes not conform ditjfingitionu7c_oir1plaint' in Section; it' can still be construed 'aij.:::\ipCQi'I1plaint. Before I rnagr first deal with the subrnission_ if ~ . S1717 lRajV.ashekar Siri, learned Counsel it for the .. res:p*ondent--complainant that the protest, application concerned herein does '-'.,rhee't. the requfirelnients of Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. I

-.haveV extracted the whole of the protest V"l.._papplic_at_ior;i"fabove. Since the complainant is '---.._asl;i,ng_utl"1e Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190[1)[a), Cr.P.C., all references in the if 'Fprotest application extracted above to the 'B' report or to what the 1.0. has done etc., would be of no avail to the complainant. The only JV!'A\ WC/'\'V '5-'€\«» known or unknown, has committed an offence, however, the said complaint not to include a police report. The essential features therefore a1'%:--:tl:l that, there should be an allegation made if S or in writing, that it should be « Magistrate, that the allegation Hshou1.d7.be' I some person known or unknown has"lcomrnitted.. "

an offence, and such anjapplication before A..the_"

Magistrate should have belenfrilade View to his taking action' underthe It islsiichfa complaint that of.

When Section of a Magistrate :cogni:§~;an'ce"'lofanifloffence on such a- to the taking of cognizarice:*-under of:iSub--seCtion (1) of Section' Section 190(1)(a), Crl.lP.C.._ of Magistrate taking of cognizance of any, offence upon receiving a 4;c'o111plaint"~of_l facts which constitute such offence. io"the'rA.wordsl,"it"should be containing facts that if " » -such offence, of which, the learned taking cognizance. Unless these "~4.__ess_eritia;lingredients are there, there would be nowzay enabling a Magistrate to take cognizance if '*u.under Section 190(l)(a), Cr.P.C. on a complaint.

"i am of the opinion that, the mere sentence that the accused have committed offences N I <\ ~r>t»»c C 10 In circumstances similar to the pI'€S€I'I.«Vt"~.::.:"~_K.' _ case in Sunil Majhi v. The State, AIR 1968_ » 238 : (1968 on LJ 618), the Calcutta High "

said that a simple protest petition' against report submitted by the police availvajndll' ' the proper course to; be ltaken byv'lVtlA~the. complainant is to file a protest petition,'vwl'3.at'*islH i called Naraji, stating theAfac:ts.._of.._.the case__AaVnd praying for action by_ztl.1e "s-oithe same may be treated as a c'oAr_npl1ainvt :.-1«_r.t1lc'ivAA-->¢:'_t1'bs_lposed of as Such' 'V .

Even i151~tl1e.vdecii.sion'_of_this*~Court earlier referredto.,"vt2I;'--1.LR'-(1-98-7)fgiéinit V994 : (1988 on 1169)' gut that, if there is no co'I_np1_E1int 'ti:q1'tially mad.e_ to the Magistrate under Section' V2001' "the question of the Magistr'a.te*taki.ng-cognizance on the basis of the ,.«.protest mernopvdoes not arise if the said protest :llS."z1'10t inmthe form of a complaint and if V' allegations constituting any offence "in memo filed, and if there is also no lu"reqiiest"'to take action. In the protest memo that T wzastbeing considered by this Court in the said "decision, it was noticed that there were no 'allegations and therefore it was not a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. ?

'EN 8 «xcm » L' I2

7. In View of what has been held in the a:fore_stateki_:V"

decisions, the objections to 'B' report filed in cannot be termed as a complaint though 'there-i'are:

stray allegations against the petitioners;

8. Therefore, I pass the fol1owi'ng:-- ' ORDEEQ' The petition is a.£'.Q€ptec!;""'AI."If'.1*;.=: 'impuigined. order of issuance of process to matter is remanded to 1earned__Magistrate from the stage of receipt report:_i'The is at liberty to file a complaint against 'B' report, if she so desiresit H » Sd/-

JUDGE 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court