IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9784/2017 BETWEEN:
1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TV9 KARNATAKA PVT. LTD., 13, RHENIUS STREET RICHMOND STREET CIVIL STATION BENGALURU – 25 REP. ABDUL HAKEEM (CEO).
2. THE EDITIOR-IN-CHIF TV9, KARNATAKA PVT. LTD., 13, REHINUS STREET RICHMOND STREET CIVIL STATION BENGALURU – 25 REP. RAJESH (EC) (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. CHANDRAKANTH PAI SON OF LATE P.K. PAI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O D-5, MAHALASA APARTMENTS 8TH CROSS ROAD GANDHINAGAR MANGALURU - 575 003.
(BY SRI. RAHAVENDRA S., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:22.07.2017 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.RP.NO.82/2017 DIRECTING THE MAGISTRATE TO RESTORE THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND PROCEED WITH THE CASE FROM THE STAGE OF ISSUE OF SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN C.C.NO.3407/2016 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.(II COURT), MANGALURU AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAID CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Raghavendra S, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Short point that arises for consideration in this petition is:
“Whether learned VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, adjudicating Crl.R.P.No.82/2017 could have dispensed with notice to petitioners herein, who are respondents in the revision petition and allowed the revision petition?
3. Respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and after taking cognizance learned Magistrate ordered for issuance of summons to accused. However, on account of steps having not been taken namely, process fee having not been paid, complaint came to be dismissed for default on 10.04.2017. This order came to be challenged in Crl.R.P.No.82/2017 by the petitioners herein (accused 1 and 2). Notice came to be dispensed with to the respondents therein i.e., petitioner herein on the ground that they were yet to be served before the learned trial Judge and as such arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner/ complainant came to be considered and criminal revision petition came to be allowed by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 10.04.2017 and restored the complaint to the file of learned trial Judge and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed from the stage of issuance of summons. Hence, this criminal petition.
4. Section 401(2) of Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that no order by the Revisional Court shall be passed unless accused or other person he/she had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. In the instant case, undisputedly no notice was served on petitioners herein. Hence, Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioners is justified in contending that said order is contrary to mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. This view is also supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of A.N. SANTHANAM vs. K. ELANGOVAN reported in (2012) 12 SCC 321. In that view of the matter, point formulated hereinabove is to be answered in favour of petitioners and against respondent.
For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 22.07.2017 passed in Crl.R.P.No.82/2017 is set aside and revision petition is restored to the file of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru.
(iii) Since parties are represented by their learned Advocates not notice is required to be issued by Revisional Court. They shall appear before the Revisional Court on 15.03.2019 without waiting for any further notice.
(iv) Learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the Crl.R.P.No.82/2017 expeditiously at any rate on or before 22.03.2019.
(v) Learned Advocates shall cooperate with the learned Sessions Judge in disposing of the petition expeditiously by addressing their arguments and learned Sessions Judge would be at liberty to pass orders on merits without granting any adjournment. If cause for adjournment is not satisfactorily explained by either of the learned Advocates, Revisional Court would be at liberty to put the parties on terms as deemed fit including imposition of costs, if called for.
(vi) Learned Sessions Judge without being influenced by the observations made in the earlier order shall proceed to adjudicate the revision petition on merits and in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE DR