IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6514 OF 2016 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5110 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6514 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
DR GURUKANTH RAO N AGED 34 YEARS S/O DR N R RAO PERMANENT ADDRESS “RAMA ANAND” MARUTHI NAGAR, PARKALA UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576107 (BY SRI: P P HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. DR RANJEETHA SHENOY AGED 32 YEARS WIFE OF DR GURUKANTH RAO N D/O M RATHNAKAR SHENOY ADDRESS: NO 3308/1G 13TH MAIN 3RD CROSS, BIET ROAD, MCC ‘B’ BLOCK DAVANGERE - 577004 ... PETITIONER 2. THE STATE THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DAVANGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANGERE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HGIH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: G.S.MURALILDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2014 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-III COURT, DAVANAGERE IN P.C.R.NO.43/2014 (NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.1488/2014) DIRECTING TO REGISTER CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A),307,448,504,506(B) AND 509 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3,4 AND 6 OF D.P. ACT AND ORDER OF ISSUANCE OF PROCESS AGAINST HIM AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAID CASE.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5110 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SMT GEETHA RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O DR.N.R.RAO, 2. DR.N.R.RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE ANAND RAO ADDRESS: NOS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT “RAMA ANAND”, MARUTHI NAGAR, PARKALA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576107 (BY SRI: P P HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. DR RANJEETHA SHENOY AGED 32 YEARS D/O M RATHNAKAR SHENOY ADDRESS: NO 3308/1G 13TH MAIN 3RD CROSS, BIET ROAD, MCC ‘B’ BLOCK DAVANGERE - 577004 2. THE STATE THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DAVANGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANGERE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HGIH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: G.S.MURALILDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2014 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-III COURT, DAVANAGERE IN P.C.R.NO.43/2014 (NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.1488/2014) DIRECTING TO REGISTER CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A),307,448,504,506(B) AND 509 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF D.P. ACT AND ORDER OF ISSUANCE OF PROCESS AGAINST THEM AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAID CASE; AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., DAVANAGERE IN CRL.RP.NO.83/2015.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R In both these petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2014, whereby the ‘B’ summary report filed by the Women Police Station, Davanagere, is rejected and cognizance is taken against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 307, 448, 504, 506B, 509 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘KAMALAPATI TRIVEDI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL’ reported in [1980] SCC [2] 91 which is followed by this Court in ‘DR. RAVI KUMAR v. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA AND ANOTHER’ reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725, learned counsel would submit that the learned Magistrate has proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant before rejecting the ‘B’ summary report filed by the police. The procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to the above said decision and therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.2 however has argued in support of the impugned order and have sought for dismissal of the petitions.
4. The procedure to be followed in the matter of accepting or rejecting the ‘B’ summary report has been elaborately considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘KAMALAPATI TRIVEDI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL’ reported in [1980] SCC [2] 91 and it has been laid down that if the court is of the opinion that the ‘B’ summary report submitted by the police is to be rejected, then by expressing it judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of ‘B’ report, the court has to reject the ‘B’ summary report. After rejection of the ‘B’ Summary report, the court has to look into the private complaint or protest petition as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the private complaint or in the protest petition constitute any cognizable offence, and only then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter, provide opportunity to the complainant to give sworn statement and also record the statements of the witnesses, if any, on the side of the complainant as per the mandate of Section 200 Cr.P.C.
5. Since this procedure has been breached by the learned Magistrate as reflected in the impugned orders, the contention urged by the petitioners deserves to be accepted.
Consequently, the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III Court, Davanagere and all consequent proceedings thereto are quashed.
The matters are remitted to the learned Magistrate to consider the ‘B’ summary report afresh in the light of the observations laid down in the aforesaid decision.
Since the matters are of the year 2012, the trial court shall expedite the matter. The complainant is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 04.04.2019 without any further notice.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-