IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2426 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
K MOHAMMED SADIQ S/O LATE MOHAMMED ALI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.22, 9TH A MAIN, BTM 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 029 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: GIREESHA J T, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SATHNOOR P.S. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560009 2. SYED ANWAR PASHA S/O SYED DASTAGIR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, NO.2, K.P.LANE, JOLLY MOHALLA, BANGALORE-560053 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: G.VENKATACHALA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323,395,427,504,506(B) OF IPC IN CR.NO.44/2016 (SATHNOOR P.S.,) PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC COURT KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
2. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., seeking action against the petitioner under sections 323, 395, 427, 504, 506 of IPC. Learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said order does not reflect that learned Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts of the case. Same is opposed to the guidelines laid down in MAKSUD SAIYED vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS, (2008) 5 SCC 668. It is also pointed out that no affidavit was filed along with the application seeking invocation of jurisdiction of learned Magistrate and same is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.
3. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the factual and legal contentions urged by the respective parties, the impugned order dated 04.03.2016 and consequent registration of FIR in Crime No.44/2016 of Sathnoor Police Station are quashed. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to consider the complaint afresh in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maksud Saiyed case and Priyanka Srivastava case, referred to supra.
The petition is allowed in terms of the above order.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss