IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9849 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. DR. PUTTASIDDAIAH S/O LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, TRUSTEE TO BABU JAGAJEEVANRAM EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST (R) R/O NO.24, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU – 570 019.
2. SRI D.P.SHIVA PRASAD S/O PUTTADISIDDAIAH, JOINT SECRETARY TO BABU JAGAJEEVANRAM EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST (R), S/O LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O NO.24, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU - 570 019. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI KASHINATH.J., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI KRISHNA S/O LATE NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, VICE PRESIDENT, BABU JAGAJEEVANRAM EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST (R) RESIDING AT NO.785, SHIVARATRISHWARANAGAR, BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU - 570 019 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UDAYAGIRI POLICE, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU- 570 019. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRINIVASA.B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 –ABSENT-; SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPPII FOR R2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER TO TAKE COGNIZANCE DATED 21.07.2014 IN PCR.NO.49/2006 PASSED BY III CJM, MYSURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN PCR.NO.49/2006 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III CJM, MYSURU AT ANNEXURE – B.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint against the petitioners seeking action for the offence under Sections 406, 408, 420 read with 34 of I.P.C. According to the complainant, the petitioners herein misappropriated the funds of Babu Jagajeevanram Educational and Cultural Trust.
2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the above offences and referred the complaint for investigation by the Udayagiri police. The police conducted the investigation and submitted a ‘B’ report. The learned Magistrate accepted the ‘B’ report. As against the said order, respondent No.1 carried the matter to Revisional Court and by the impugned order dated 27.03.2012, Crl.R.P.No.10/2012 was allowed and the order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate in PCR No.49/2006 was set aside directing the Magistrate to restore the complaint to file and to give opportunity to the complainant to lead further sworn statement of witnesses.
3. The only grievance raised by the petitioner in this petition is that the revision petition was disposed of by the Sessions Court without notice to the petitioners herein and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.
4. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it reveals that the notice to the petitioners herein was dispensed with as the notice was not issued to the petitioners before the trial court. Undisputedly, the petitioners were arraigned as respondents. The trial court had accepted the ‘B’ report. Having regard to the above facts, notice ought to have been served on the respondent. There was no reason for the revisional court to dispense with the notice to the petitioners. The State or the jurisdictional police were also not made parties to the revision petition. Hence, the order passed by the learned District Judge and Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.10/2012 dated 27.03.2012 and the consequent order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the CJM at Mysuru taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 406, 408, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. is set aside. The petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru to cause notice to the respondents/petitioners herein and to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Sd/- JUDGE dh