IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7430 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NALINI M.SHETTY, W/O LATE MOHANDAS SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O MUTHIKAL HOUSE, PUTTUR TOWN, D.K. NOW RESIDING AT R/O NO.324, 9TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, MYSURU – 570 008.
2. SUDHAKARSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, MYSURU – 570 008.
3. HUSSAIN, S/O H.AHMED, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O KADABGERE VILLAGE, SANGAMESHWARPET POST, CHIKMAGALUR – 577 130.
4. SUDHAMANI AJILA, W/O SACHIDANANDA AGILA, D/O UDDAPPASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O KUSUMADAMA HOUSE, MANI VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.
5. HEMALATHA SHETTY, W/O VENUGOPALSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.C.608, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 10TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.
6. YOGESH, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, BIDRE VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKMAGALUR – 577 132. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.R.RAVIKUMAR, ADV.,) AND:
SMT. JAYALAKSHMISHETTY, W/O CHANDRASHEKARSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O POORNESHWARI ESTATE, GANDDI, BIDRE VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKMAGALUR TQ & DISTRICT – 577 132. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A.H.BHAGAVAN, ADV.,) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2012 AND QUASH ALL ITS ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.818/2012 (CR.NO.59/2010) ON THE FILE OF PRL.C.J. & J.M.F.C., CHIKMAGALUR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners have sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.818/2012 (Crime No.59/2010) on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Chikmagalur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 448, 342, 504, 379, 427, 324, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners has urged two fold contentions. Firstly, he contends that in respect of the same offences, accused were tried in C.C.No.1103/2005 and were acquitted by Judgment dated 13.08.2012 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikmagalur, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to maintain the private complaint against the petitioners in view of the bar contained in Section 300 of Cr.P.C. Secondly, the private complaint is filed in respect of the offences that taken place in the year 2012 and therefore, the initiation of criminal proceedings is barred by limitation as the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for not less than three years.
4. Disputing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent/Complainant was constrained to file the private complaint on account of the inaction of the Police to act on the first information lodged by the Complainant in the year 2004, therefore, there is sufficient explanation for the delay in approaching the Court. Further, none of the petitioners herein have been tried for the above offences and therefore, the provisions of Section 300 of Cr.P.C., are also not applicable to the facts of the case.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, I do not find any reason to quash the impugned proceedings. Insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, necessary averments are found in the private complaint explaining the circumstances leading to the delay. It is for the Trial Court to consider the said explanation and therefore the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.
6. The second contention urged by the petitioners that the proceedings are barred under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. also cannot be accepted. The copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.1103/2005 dated 13.08.2012 discloses that none of the petitioners herein were parties to the said proceedings, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of Section 300 Cr.P.C.
7. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the private complaint filed by the respondent is referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, jurisdictional Police have submitted ‘B’ summary report and the same is pending consideration of the Court. The Trial Court therefore shall consider the said ‘B’ summary report and pass appropriate orders in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal [(1980) SCC 91], which is followed by this Court in Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. K.M.C.Vasantha and Another (ILR 2012 KAR 1725 and proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*