Karnataka High Court
Sri B G Uday vs Sri H G Prashanth on 1 April, 2022
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2336/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI B.G. UDAY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O B.N. GARUDACHAR
R/O NO.727/1, 46TH CROSS,
JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 082. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. SUMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI H.G. PRASHANTH
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O H.N. GOPINATHA RAO
NO.129/2, 1ST FLOOR
TEMPLE STREET,
ITI LAYOUT, BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2022 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (CCH-42) IN C.C.
NO.30758/2021 AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER IN THE COURT BELOW U/S 251 CRPC AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER OF THE OFFENCE
-2-
ALLEGED AGAINST HIM U/S 125-A OF THE REPRESENTATION OF
THE PEOPLE ACT IN C.C. NO.30758/2021.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner who is the accused in C.C.No.30758/2021 has filed the present petition calling in question the validity of order dated 15.02.2022 whereby the application filed by the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C., came to be rejected.
2. Sri. K. Suman, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with by invoking power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and submits that the findings recorded rejecting his contention relating to requirement for declaration of a criminal case, which proceeding was stayed would prejudice his rights while arguing the matter finally before orders are passed by the trial court.
3. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings in C.C.No.915/2016 were stayed by this court in Crl.P 5714/2016 by order dated 08.08.2016 and accordingly as on the date of -3- filing of the affidavit on 19.04.2018, there was no obligation to have made any declaration regarding pendency of the said case. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asgarali Nasarali Singaporewalla v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1957 SC 503 and it is contended that the effect of order of stay and its consequence would have to be judged in light of the test prescribed in Para 21 and accordingly, the question of declaring of pendency of the said case does not arise. The other contention raised is that the proceedings in C.C.No.915/2016 came to be quashed in its entirety by disposal of Crl.P 5714/2016 dated 13.08.2019 and the effect of such quashing is that the proceedings are deemed to be wiped out and reliance is placed on the judgment of Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Basanta Kumar Baral and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 1999 (1) OLR 8.
4. It is contended that the findings in the impugned order are not to be construed to be final determination of legal contentions raised and all contentions are to be kept open to be decided while finally disposing off the matter and the observation in the impugned order ought not to come in the way of the court re-determining the matter after detailed consideration. -4-
5. The learned counsel for respondent would submit that the order passed does not call for interference insofar as the Special Judge did not have power to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner as the stage had passed.
6. Various other contentions have been raised by the respondent counsel including that consideration of the present proceedings are at the stage of cross-examination of PW.1.
7. This court is of the opinion that intervention at this advanced stage may not be permissible more so when the earlier round of litigation in Crl.P No.7545/2020 relating to validity of the proceedings which is now sought to be challenged had attained finality before the Apex Court, and in such earlier round of litigation several contentions have already been considered.
8. Though it is the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the interim order of stay in Crl.P No.5714/2006 was not furnished in the earlier round of litigation, that may not be a sufficient ground for reconsideration of the matter in exercise of discretionary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., also considering that the matter is at the tag end of the proceedings before the Trial Court.
-5-
9. Accordingly, this court declines to interfere with the impugned order while observing that the observations made in the impugned order are to be construed as being made for disposal of the said application and the court would be at liberty while finally disposing off the matter to take note of the contentions addressed by the respondents as noticed above as well as all other contentions of the respondent which may be urged at the time of final disposal of the matter. No grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order. It is clarified that this court has not expressed its views as regards the contentions raised as the matter is pending consideration and is still to be decided.
10. Accordingly, the matter is disposed off. All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-