IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7239/2017 BETWEEN SMT. HEMAVATHI D/O CHIKKAMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKATHIRUPATHI VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 568101.
(BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALUR CIRCLE, MALUR, KOLAR DIST REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
2 . SRI. VENKATA REDDY S/O LATE RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKATHIRUPATHI VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 568101.
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 SRI B RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH FIR NO.68/2016, REGISTERED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALUR IN PCR NO.153/2015 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MALUR FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 209, 420, 465, 468, 471, 417, 415, 416 OF IPC AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND ALLOW THIS PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
On 02.12.2019 the following order was passed:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is covered by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER /VS./ STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2015 SC 1758.
There is no representation for respondent No.2.
In the interest of justice, list this matter on 09.12.2019.
Interim order granted earlier stands extended, till the next date of hearing.”
2. Matter is called out there is no representation for respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner in this criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashment of the FIR No.0068/2016 registered in PCR No.153/2015 on the file of the II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and JMFC, Malur.
4. As stated earlier, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the second respondent has not filed an affidavit before the Magistrate showing compliance of Section 154(1) and (3), it is prayed that all further proceedings be quashed. Nevertheless, the primary contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the private complaint which was instituted by the second respondent before the Magistrate invoking the provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.
5. The learned Counsel submits that as mandated, the second respondent has not approached the jurisdictional police and there is no material place before the Magistrate to show that there is compliance of Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Learned Counsel for the second respondent seeks to justify the institution of the private complaint. However, he fairly submits that the second respondent has not placed any material on record to show that there is compliance of Sections 154(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.
7. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has declared that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence. It was further directed that the Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. It was finally directed that whenever a private complaint is instituted, the same shall be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate showing compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. In other words, as provided in Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C., the aggrieved person is required to approach the jurisdictional police. If the jurisdictional police do not take note of the complaint, then the complainant shall bring the same to the notice of the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police, as the case may be, in writing. If no action is taken and the complainant approaches the Magistrate by filing a private complaint, an affidavit is required to be filed along with the material to substantiate the contention of the complainant that he or she has complied with the requirements of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. When admittedly the second respondent has not placed any material to substantiate that there is compliance of Sections 154 (1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. as mandated, then the proceedings are required to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in FIR No.0068/2016 registered in PCR No.153/2015 on the file of the II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and JMFC, Malur are hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the second respondent to comply with the provisions as observed hereinabove and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-