IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.189/2018 BETWEEN:
H.R. VISHWANATH S/O LATE PATEL RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.92/10, 12TH ‘C’ MAIN 6TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.
(BY SRI. S.G. BHAGAVAN., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN P.S, CHANNARAYAPATNA REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. NAGARATHNA W/O S.R. SHEKHAR AGED 45 YEARS RESIDING BEHIND CHANNARAYAPATNA COURT CHANNARAYAPATNA – 573 116 HASSAN DISTRICT.
3. NEELAMMA W/O DEVEGOWDA AGE NOT KNOWN R/AT C/O NAGARATHNA BEHIND CHANNARAYAPATNA COURT ... PETITIONER CHANNARAYAPATNA – 573 116 HASSAN DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.2707/2015 DATED 16.01.2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The only point which arises for consideration in this petition is:
“Whether order of taking cognizance is in accordance with law?”
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.S.G.Bhagavan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent–State and Sri. Manjunath B.R., learned counsel appearing for second respondent. Third respondent is served and unrepresented.
3. As could be seen from the order sheet of trial Court cognizance of the offences alleged against petitioner has been taken by the registry of trial Court namely, Chief Administrative Officer cum Chief Ministerial Officer as is evident from Annexure-H-1. In fact, learned Magistrate after such endorsement made by Chief Ministerial Officer is placed before Court has ordered for issuance of notice to respondents therein on 04.03.2016 and prima facie order sheet of the trial Court would disclose that cognizance has not at all been taken by the learned Magistrate.
4. It is trite law that a judicious application of mind would be required while taking cognizance of an offence by the learned Magistrate and in the instant case, it is not even the case of the prosecution that learned Magistrate had taken cognizance. But on the other hand, order sheet reflects that learned Magistrate has endorsed the entry made by the Chief Administrative Officer or Chief Ministerial Officer, which is illegal. In that view of the matter, procedure adopted by learned Magistrate being flawed, it cannot stand test of law. However, it would be necessary to remit the matter back to jurisdictional Court for taking further steps in the matter in the manner known to law.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 16.01.2015 and consequential orders passed in C.C.No.2707/2015 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to learned trial Judge, namely Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Channarayapatna, Hassan, to proceed in accordance with law by keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.
(iii) It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of case and all contentions of both parties are kept open.
SD/-
JUDGE DR