Karnataka High Court
Major C.R. Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 11 September, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6422 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. MAJOR C.R. RAMESH
S/O C RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
NO.5, 8TH CROSS ROAD,
I MAIN ROAD, PRASHANTH NAGAR
BANGALORE-560079
2. SRI B R RAJEEV
S/O C R RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.14, ARBOR ROAD,
AUCKLAND M A
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
3. SMT SHAKUNTHALAMMA RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
W/O C R RAMESH
NO.5, 8TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
PRASHANTH NAGAR
BANGALORE 560079
4. SRI M VEERAKYATHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIVEERAIAH,
NO.1351, 10TH MAIN ROAD
2
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560040
5. SRI R NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O RANGANNA,
NO.152, 12TH CROSS,
SARAKKI MAIN ROAD,
1ST PHASE, J P NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560078
6. SRI K GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
S/O KARIYANNA
NO.429, AGB LAYOUT,
10TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE,
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560090
7. SRI M CHIKKEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
S/O G MARAPPA,
NO.1783, 9TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN ROAD
HAMPINAGARA (RPC LAYOUT),
BANGALORE-560104
8. DR D SOMASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O DODDAVEERANNA
NO.211, 15TH C CROSS,
2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BANGALORE 560086
9. PROF MAALI MADDANNA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
S/O MALY SHIVANNA,
NO.16, 1ST MAIN ROD,
VIJAYANAGARA II PHASE,
3
BANGALORE 560104
10. SRI A R PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA,
NO.460, 2ND STAGE, 12TH CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BANGALORE 560086
11. SMT JYOTHI BALAKRISHNA
W/O BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.4, JYOTHIRGAMAYA NILAYA,
2ND CROSS, AMBEDKAR LAYOUT,
AMBABHAVANI TEMPLE ROAD
VIJAYANAGARA
BANGALORE 560024
12. SMT SHOBHA CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR ,
NO.53, DAKSHINESHWARA,
10TH MAIN, ROAD, 1ST STAGE,
IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA
BANGALORE 560098
13. SMT LEELA LEELADHARA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O K R LEELADHARA,
NO.940, SOUGHANDHIKA, 2ND CROSS,
AGB LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROD,
BANGALORE 560090
14. SMT SUVARNA LINGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O L LINGARAJU,
NO.426/B, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK,
3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
4
BANGALORE 560079
15. SMT B R DEEPTHI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
D/O C R RAMESH,
NO.5, 8TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD
PRASHANTHA NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560079
16. SMT LEELA SOMASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O MAASTI SOMASHEKAR,
NO.53, DAKSHINESHWARA,
10TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE,
IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA,
BANGALORE-560098
17. SRI KAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O SRINIVASAPPA,
NO.415/C, 20TH MAIN ROAD
1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA,
BANGALORE 560010
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: MALLIKARJUNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: R. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BANGALORE-560001.
2. T RAMANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
5
S/O THADAPPA,
R/AT 298, NAGASHREE,
17TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK,
R T NAGARA
BANGALORE 560032
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI: VENKATESHA.C., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: S.CHENNARAYA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2016 IN
C.C.NO.16464/2016 PASSED BY XLIV ACMM, BANGALORE
ISSUING PROCESS TO THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE-A),
CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN C.C.NO.16464/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for the second respondent and learned Addl. SPP appearing for the first respondent.
Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., seeking action against the petitioners under sections 417, 418, 420, 423, 426, 511 read with 34 of IPC. Learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, 'B' summary report was submitted to the Court. 6 Complainant filed his protest petition. Learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and by the impugned order dated 08.07.2016, issued summons to the petitioners.
2. A reading of the aforesaid order indicates that the learned Magistrate has not passed any orders on the 'B' summary report, either accepting or rejecting the same. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KAMALAPATI TRIVEDI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in [1980] SCC [2] 91 which is followed by this Court in DR. RAVI KUMAR v. Mrs. K.M.C. VASANTHA and Another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725 has held as under:-
"5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is well recognized principle of law that, once the police submit 'B' Summary Report and protest petition is filed to the same, irrespective of contents of the protest petition, the court has to examine the contents of 'B' Summary Report so as to ascertain whether the police have done investigation in a proper manner or not and if the court is of the opinion that the investigation has not been conducted properly, the court has got some options to be followed, which are,-
i) "The court after going through the contents of the investigating papers, filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., is of the opinion that the investigation has not been done properly, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Police to file the charge sheet however, the Court may direct the Police for re or further investigation and submit a report, which power is inherent under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, but before taking cognizance such exercise has to be done. This my view is supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 1968 S.C. 117 between Abhinandan Jha and Dinesh Mishra 7 (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court reported in (1980) SCC 91 between Kamalapati Trivedi and State of West Bengal.
ii) If the court is of the opinion that the material available in the 'B' Summary Report makes out a cognizable case against the accused and the same is sufficient to take cognizance, and to issue process, then the court has to record its opinion under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., and the Court has got power to take cognizance on the contents of 'B' Summary Report and to proceed against the accused, by issuance of process.
iii) If the court is of the opinion that the 'B' Summary Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected, then by expressing its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of 'B' report, the court has to reject the 'B' Summary Report.
iv) After rejection of the 'B' Summary Report, the court has to look into the private complaint or Protest Petition as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the Private complaint or in the Protest Petition constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter, provide opportunity to the complainant to give Sworn Statement and also record the statements of the witnesses if any on the side of the complainant as per the mandate of Sec.200 Cr.P.C."
3. Since the learned Magistrate has failed to follow the procedure as laid down in the above decision, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.07.2016 in C.C. No.16464/2016 on the file of XLIV 8 ACMM, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to learned Magistrate to consider the 'B' summary report afresh in the light of the guidelines laid down in the above decision and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. All legal and factual contentions urged by the parties are left open for consideration at the appropriate stage.
In view of disposal of petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and it is also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss