Karnataka High Court
Deval S/O Appasab Desai vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2020
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101270/2019
BETWEEN
1. DEVAL S/O. APPASAB DESAI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PROFESSOR COLONY,
JAMKHANDI. 587301.
2. KIRANKUMAR S/O. DEVAL DESAI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: PROFESSOR COLONY,
JAMKHANDI-587301.
3. UDAYAKUMAR S/O. DEVAL DESAI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE.
R/O: PROFESSOR COLONY,
JAMKHANDI-587301.
... PETITIONERS
(BY, SRI V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI, TOWN POLICE STATION,
JAMKHANDI.
RPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD-580001
2
2. MAGEPPA S/O. BAHUSAB DESAI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HALINGALI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587311.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1.
SRI S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1, 3 & 4 IN
P.C.NO.4/2019 (JAMKHANDI POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.36/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC COURT, JAMKHANDI, FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 403, 406, 420, 426, 427, 465, 468,
470, 504 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner's counsel and the learned counsels for the respondents.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the 2nd respondent has filed private complaint under Section 3 200 of Cr.P.C. in P.C.No.4/2019 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 403, 406, 420, 426, 427, 465, 468, 470, 504 read with 149 of IPC. On presentation of the complaint, the Magistrate perused the complaint and ordered to register the same as private complaint and referred the complaint to SHO town police station, Jamakhandi for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and called the report. The same has been challenged before this Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the very reference of the case to the Investigation Officer for investigation.
3. The grounds urged in the petition is that the partition deed dated 19.05.2018 was prepared by both the complainant and accused No.2 who are the joint owners of the properties and the partition deed is signed only by the complainant and accused No.2 and these 4 petitioners have no nexus to the alleged concoction and hence, the very initiation of proceedings is nothing but an abuse of Court process and hence, this Court has to quash the same. The petitioners' counsel reiterates the grounds urged in the petition to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or otherwise it amounts to abuse of process.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that on presentation of the complaint, the Court did not take any cognizance and only referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to ascertain the substance in the complaint and hence, there are no grounds to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Having heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and the learned counsels for the respondents, the point that arises for consideration of this Court is whether this Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5
6. On perusal of the materials, the trial Court did not take the cognizance and instead of exercising the powers under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., instead of enquiring into the complaint himself directed the Investigation Officer to investigate and submit the report for the purpose of deciding whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not and when such being the circumstances, when the cognizance was not taken and the matter is only referred to the Investigation Officer to ascertain whether there is substance in the complaint to proceed in the matter, the trial Court has rightly proceeded in the matter. When such being the case, this Court does not find any reasons to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as sought in the petition.
7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following:
6
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the Court in future, if it is warranted.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sh