IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1653 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
B. B. RAMASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE BETTASWAMY GOWDA RESIDING AT NO. 780 5TH MAIN ROAD, 10TH CROSS ROAD, 2ND STAGE, MAHALAXMIPURA WEST OF CHORD ROAD BANGALORE-560086 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: D SRINIVAS MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI MUNICHINNAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS 2. SRI PILLATHIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE MUNICHINAPPA 3. SRI PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O MUNICHINAPPA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: C M DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R3-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.20/12 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE, DATED:5.9.12 THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has called in question the order dated 05.09.2012 and the order 10.12.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli in C.C.No.20/2012, whereby the learned Magistrate has issued summons to the petitioner and allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. and has permitted the respondent to continue the proceedings filed by the complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 is absent. Perused the records.
2. The father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 Sri. Munichanappa filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.. The same was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police submitted a ‘B’ summary report. By order dated 18.05.2002, the learned Magistrate accepted the ‘B’ report. However, respondent Nos.2 and 3 claiming to be the legal representatives of the original complainant moved an application seeking permission to continue the proceedings as L.Rs. of their deceased father. Said application has been allowed by the impugned order. The learned Magistrate has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RASHIDA KAMALUDDIN SYED AND ANOTHER vs. SHAIKH SAHEBLAL MAREDAN(DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ANOTHER, reported in 2007 (2) Crimes 407 (SC) and has held that after the death of the complainant, his legal representatives are entitled to continue the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on the date of acceptance of the ‘B’ report, the complainant was alive and therefore the impugned order is erroneous and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. Neither the impugned order nor the records produced before the Court disclose the actual date of death of the original complainant. From the reading of the impugned order, it can be gathered that the learned Magistrate has proceeded on the premise that as on the date of acceptance of the ‘B’ report i.e., on 18.05.2002, the complainant was dead and the said order having been passed against a dead person, by placing reliance on the above decision, the learned Magistrate has permitted the legal representatives of the original complainant to continue the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced either the application filed by the respondent under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. nor any material to show that as on 18.05.2002, the complainant was alive. In the absence of any material to show the exact date of death of the original complainant, the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate have to be accepted. It has to be held that only after ascertaining that the complainant was not alive as on the date of passing of the said order, the learned Magistrate has passed the aforesaid order. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-