IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3193/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. B.V.Seetaram, S/o. Venkatramana, Aged about 56 years, Director of M/s. Chitra Publications, Karavali Ale Kannada Daily News Paper, 400’c Baikampady Industrial Area, Mangaluru – 575 011.
2. Smt. Rohini, W/o. B.V. Seetharam, Aged about 47 years, Managing Director of M/s. Chitra Publications, Karavali Ale Kannada Daily News Paper, 400’c Baikampady Industrial Area, Mangaluru – 575 011. ...Petitioners (By Sri. K. Ravishankar, Advocate) AND:
J. Krishna Palemar, S/o. Late J. Mallappa, Aged about 55 years, R/at Pamadi Towers, 1st Floor, 9th Cross, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 009. ...Respondent (By Sri. P.H. Virupakshaiah, Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.5716/2013 pending on the file of the IX A.C.M.M., Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent.
2. Even though petitioners have urged large number of grounds in the petition assailing the order of cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, the learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his submission on the procedural aspects concerning Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
3. The learned counsel submits that in the private complaint the accused persons are shown as residents of Mangaluru, which is beyond the territorial limits of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. In the said circumstances, by virtue of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate could not have issued summons to the petitioners without holding an enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ABHIJIT PAWAR Vs. HEMANT MADHUKAR NIMBALKAR AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2017) 3 SCC 528.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.03.2013 passed in C.C.No.5716/2013 by the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issuing summons to the petitioners is set aside. Matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to proceed in the matter after compliance of requirements of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. All other contentions urged by the parties are left upon for consideration at appropriate stage.
Sd/- JUDGE SV