IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8057/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Basavanaika, S/o Dasanaika, Major, 2. Jagganaika @ Jagadeesha, S/o Dasanaika, Major, 3. Smt. Kamala, W/o Jagadeesha Naika, Major, 4. Smt. Jyothi, W/o Swamy, Major, 5. Smt. Lakshmi, W/o Basavanaika, Major, 6. Shashikala, D/o Dasanaika, Major, 7. Smt. Dyavamma, W/o Dasanika, Major, 8. Dasanaika, S/o Ranganaika, Major, All are R/o Hanike Village, Maadihalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District – 573 115. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Sumanth L. Bharadwaj, Advocate) AND:
1. Lakshmananaika S/o Kalanaika, Aged about 36 years, R/o Hanike Village, Maadihalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District – 573 115.
2. State of Karnataka Represented by SPP, Halebeedu Police Station, Beluru. ... Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R2; Sri. H.C. Sundaresh, Advocate for R1) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 25.10.2013 and further proceedings in PCR No.15/2012 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Belur (Annexure-A) in the circumstances of the case.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.2.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Belur, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the ‘B’ report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Halebidu Police Station and consequently took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 392, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Magistrate has not recorded the sworn statement of the complainant. As such, the impugned order insofar as taking cognizance of the alleged offences and issuing summons to the petitioners cannot be sustained.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the ‘B’ report is not supported by any reasons, yet on going through the impugned order it is seen that the learned Magistrate has assigned proper reasons to reject the ‘B’ report. In para 4 of the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has observed that the concerned police have not at all visited the spot on 02.06.2012 and have not recorded the statement of complainant and witnesses and have not drawn Mahazar at the spot. Thus, there was sufficient justification for the learned Magistrate, to reject the ‘B’ report. As a result, that part of the order cannot be faulted with.
Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. The order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the ‘B’ report is affirmed. The subsequent order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing summons to the petitioners is quashed.
The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to record the sworn statement of the complainant and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. Since the matter is of the year 2012, the complainant is directed to be present before the trial Court on 20.05.2019, without any further notice.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV