IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9794/2016 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9793/2016 IN CRL.P.NO.9794/2016 BETWEEN 1 . A A V S ADINARAYANA @ ADI S/O ADDALA RAMAGOPALAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2 . SMT NUTHALAPATI LAKSHMI RAJESHWARI W/O A.A.V.S.ADINARAYANA @ ADI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT FLAT NO. 503 “SOWMYA APARTMENT” NEW P & T COLONY, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 520 010 (BY SRI RAGHUNATHA K, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYANAGARA POLICE STATION, REP BY ITS HIGH COURT GOVT PLEADER, BENGALURU 560001.
2 . DUGGINENI BHASKAR RAO @ B.R.DUGGINENI S/O LATE DUGGINENI VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER OF ...PETITIONERS M/S BHARANI MINERALS, R/AT FLAT NO.3, MURTHYS MANOR, NO.44/46, GIRI ROAD, T-NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017 (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 SRI N JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.84/2016 AT ANNEXURE-A IN PURSUANCE PCR NO.3871/2016 AT ANNEXURE-B PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW.
IN CRL.P.NO.9793/2016 BETWEEN A A V S ADINARAYANA @ ADI S/O ADDALA RAMAGOPALAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO. 503 ”SOWMYA APARTMENT”
NEW P & T COLONY, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRAPRADESH -520 010.
(BY SRI RAGHUNATHA K, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYANAGARA POLICE STATION, REP BY ITS HIGH COURT GOVT PLEADER, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . DUGGINENI BHASKAR RAO @ B.R.DUGGINENI S/O LATE DUGGINENI VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER OF ...PETITIONER M/S BHARANI MINERALS, R/AT FLAT NO.3, MURTHYS MANOR, NO.44/46, GIRI ROAD, T-NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017 (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 SRI N JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.83/2016 AT ANNEXURE-A IN PURSUANCE PCR NO.3870/2016 AT ANNEXURE-B PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners have filed these criminal petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer to quash the proceedings in Crime Nos.84/2016 and 83/2016 in pursuance of PCR Nos.3871/2016 and 3870/2016 respectively on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. The first petitioner and the second respondents are the partners in M/s.Bharani Minerals, through which they have produced films. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, dispute arose out of the partnership and was in the nature of civil litigation. Nevertheless, the primary contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the private complaint which was instituted by the second respondent before the Magistrate invoking the provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.
3. The learned Counsel submits that as mandated, the second respondent has not approached the jurisdictional police and there is no material place before the Magistrate to show that there is compliance of Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Learned Counsel for the second respondent seeks to justify the institution of the private complaint. However, he fairly submits that the second respondent has not placed any material on record to show that there is compliance of Sections 154(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.
5. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has declared that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence. It was further directed that the Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. It was finally directed that whenever a private complaint is instituted, the same shall be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate showing compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. In other words, as provided in Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C., the aggrieved person is required to approach the jurisdictional police. If the jurisdictional police do not take note of the complaint, then the complainant shall bring the same to the notice of the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police, as the case may be, in writing. If no action is taken and the complainant approaches the Magistrate by filing a private complaint, an affidavit is required to be filed along with the material to substantiate the contention of the complainant that he or she has complied with the requirements of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. When admittedly the second respondent has not placed any material to substantiate that there is compliance of Sections 154 (1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. as mandated, then the proceedings are required to be quashed.
6. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The proceedings in Crime Nos.84/2016 and 83/2016 and as well as the private complaints in PCR Nos.3871/2016 and 3870/2016 respectively on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore are hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the second respondent to comply with the provisions as observed hereinabove and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-