Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar S/O Ramappa Chittargi vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11373/2013
BETWEEN
CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O RAMAPPA CHITTARGI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY IN
GRAM PANCHAYAT, MAROL,
R/O: AIHOLE, TQ: HUNGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.M. BHAT FOR SRI B SHARANABASAWA,
ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
ITS HUNGUND P.S., BAGALKOT
R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD
2. HANMAPP S/O LAXMAPPA MADAR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: HAVARGI, TQ: HUNGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587118 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL.SPP FOR R1)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
DATED 14.12.2009 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND
SET ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.NO.65/2009
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JMFC COURT,
HUNGUND FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 463, 464, 470,
471, 477-A R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent No.1 - State. Perused the records.
2. A person by name Hanumapp s/o.Laxmapp Madar filed a private complaint u/s.200 Cr.PC. against the petitioner herein and two others for the offence punishable under Sections 463, 464, 470, 471, 477(A) read with Section 34 of IPC, on the allegations that the accused persons have created documents in order to 3 misappropriate the funds allocated for the development of SC/ST community.
3. The learned Magistrate after registering a case in PC No.65/2009 recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and referred the matter for investigation u/s.202 of Cr.PC. by the jurisdictional police. After due investigation, the police have submitted the B-summary report in Crime No.39/2011. The complainant has challenged the said B-summary report by filing objections. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate on the request of the complainant passed an order u/s.94(1) read with Section 94(2) of Cr.PC directing A1 to A3 to produce certain documents. This order was passed on 31.10.2012. The petitioner herein has challenged the entire proceedings pending before the learned JMFC.
4. The petitioner herein (accused No.3) has appeared before the learned Magistrate and the learned 4 Magistrate has accepted the vakalath of the counsel for the accused person.
5. On meticulous perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it reveals that in fact he has not issued any process after passing an order u/s.203 of Cr.PC. Section 202 of Cr.PC. contemplates that the Magistrate can inquire into the matter suo-moto by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons.
6. After getting the matter investigated, the learned Magistrate has to step into Section 203 of Cr.PC. Under section 203 of Cr.PC, it is the bounden duty of the learned Magistrate to consider the averments in the complaint and statement of the complainant and all the witnesses and the result of the inquiry u/s.202 Cr.PC, if the learned Magistrate is of 5 the opinion that there are no grounds to proceed, he shall dismiss the complaint and in such a case, he shall record his reasons for so doing. If the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, then by invoking the provision of Section 204 of Cr.PC, he shall issue process against the accused persons summoning them before the court.
7. In this particular case, Section 202 of Cr.PC. is completed but the learned Magistrate has not passed any order under Sections 203 or 204 of Cr.PC. Therefore, the petitioner cannot anticipate or imagine what order the learned Magistrate may pass u/s.203 of Cr.PC. At this stage, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate.
8. In my opinion, it is too premature to challenge the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate. 6 Perhaps, the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 31.10.2012, was misconceived by the petitioner. He might have voluntarily appeared before the Court or represented through an advocate, which procedure is absolutely wrong. The petitioner is not supposed to appear before the learned Magistrate as an accused in the absence of any process being issued to him. In the above said circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. However, it is observed, the petitioner is at liberty to exercise his right, if aggrieved in the event of the learned Magistrate issues any process against him.
With these observations, the petition stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition, the pending IA No.1/2013 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.
SD/-
JUDGE PL