IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2601 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
DR. RASHEED AHMED, S/O LATE SAFIULLAH, AGE 63 YEARS, NO. 744, RAJEEV NAGAR-I STAGE, MYSORE-570019.
(BY SRI:S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, MANGALORE-575003.
2. J.V.AMAR, S/O J.VENKANNA RAO, AGE 38 YEARS, SHARAVATI NAGAR, ‘CHANDRAVATHI NILAYA’, SHIMOGA-577201.
3. JAWARAIAH, S/O CHENNAIAH, AGE 61 YEARS, NO.505, “VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA”, KUSHALANAGARA, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. CASE NO.36/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DIST. & S.J., DAKSHINA KANNADA., MANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1.
2. Though the petitioner has urged large number of grounds in the petition, in the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission mainly on the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate.
3. Referring to the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 08.08.2012, it is contended that the said order on the face of it indicates that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. The impugned order does not disclose the offences in respect of which, cognizance has been taken. The impugned order does not amount to taking of cognizance leading to the prosecution of the petitioner. Therefore solely, on this ground, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 have argued in support of the impugned order contending that the notings put up in the order sheet clearly reveal the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and therefore there is no reason to quash the proceedings as sought for by the petitioner.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.GHCL EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST vs. M/S. INDIA INFOLINE LTD., reported in 2012 Crl.L.J. 2044.
6. It is now well settled that ‘summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to the existence of a prima facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on record.’ 7. The impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate has not adverted his mind to the facts of the case and have mechanically issued summons to the petitioner.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 08.08.2012 and all subsequent proceedings conducted by the learned Magistrate are quashed. The matter is remitted to the learned trial Judge to consider the charge sheet afresh and proceed in the matter from the stage of taking cognizance. All the contentions urged by the parties are left open.
SD/- JUDGE *mn/-