Karnataka High Court
N D Yogish vs A S Hemalatha on 18 January, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1126 OF 2022
BETWEEN
N D YOGISH
S/O DEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NAKALGODU VILLAGE
KONATHUR POST
KASABA HOBLI,
ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 213
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)
AND
A S HEMALATHA
W/O N D YOGISH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.464
SATYAMANGALA GRAMA
SATYAMANGALA
OPPOSITE TO GRAMAPANCHAYATI
HASSAN 573115
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.N. SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.53/2017
(P.C.R.NO.619/2015) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 494, 420, 498(A), 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the cognizance taken by the Magistrate as against the petitioner in CC.No.53/2017 (P.C.R.NO.619/2015) for the offences punishable under sections 494, 420, 498(A), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of III Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hassan.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint is filed by the respondent without producing any document and merely on the sworn statement the trial court took the cognizance. Even the documents were produced subsequent to the sworn statement and the same was not marked and there is cryptic order passed by the trial court and there is no application of mind for taking cognizance against petitioner for any of the offences, therefore, prayed for quashing the petition. 3
4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent though objected the petition, however submits that the case may be remanded back for fresh consideration.
5. Having heard the arguments of both parties and perusal of record, especially the private complaint filed by the respondent as against the petitioner under section 200 of Cr.P.C and for the above said offences, especially section 494 of IPC and other aforementioned offences. The learned Magistrate though recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, but there is no proper enquiry required under section 202 of Cr.P.C by examining any witnesses on behalf of the complainant and marked any document in order to satisfy himself for taking cognizance and proceed to issue process under section 204 of Cr.P.C. The order of the Magistrate is very cryptic, as like in the case of police report while taking cognizance. The learned Magistrate referred in the order dated 8.12.2016 stating that only on perusal of the complaint and documents and sworn statement and satisfied for taking cognizance and issued the summons, absolutely 4 there is no application of mind for having satisfied or any reason assigned for taking cognizance for the offences punishable section under sections 494, 420, 498(A), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Apart from this there is no proper enquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C and document said to be filed subsequent to the sworn statement which was not marked. Therefore, the order under challenge suffers from legality therefore it is not sustainable. Hence, taking cognizance is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
The order of taking cognizance by the trial court dated 18.12.2016 in PCR.No.619/2015 in C.C.No.53/2017 in III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration and to make enquiry as per Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and then proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV