IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5998/2013 BETWEEN:
1. M/S.ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.152, EPIP ZONE, HOODI VILLAGE, BENGALURU– 560 048.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, CHAITANYA M.KAMATH.
2. CHAITANYA M.KAMATH, MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO M/S.ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED, PLOT NO.152, EPIP ZONE, HOODI VILLAGE, BANGALORE – 560 048.
3. MR.SAJAN MATHAI, DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES CUSTOMER SERVICES ORGANIZATION COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD., ORACLE TECHNOLOGY PARK, 3, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 029.
4. K.K.DAVIS, VICE PRESIDENT - HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING, M/S. ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED, PLOT NO.152, EPIP ZONE, HOODI VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 560 048. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE REPRESENTED BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE – 560 048.
2. SHARAN DESAI, S/O. LATE HANUMANTHA RAO DESAI, NO.20/29, GROUND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE – 560 020. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMARA MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA.K. ADV. FOR R2) ---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO (a) QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN PCR NO.68/13 BY THE X ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 468, 471, 120 AND 34 OF IPC, 1860 AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.2013 passed by the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in PCR.No.68/2013 (Crime No.312/2013) whereby the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 under section 200 Cr.P.C., has been referred for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
2. The order sheet maintained by the Trial Court reveals that a private complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate on 19.03.2013. The same was put up before the learned Magistrate on 20.04.2013. On the said date, learned Magistrate passed the following order:-
“Complainant present. Heard the complainant. Complaint is referred to S.H.O. Mahadevapura P.S. for enquiry u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. For report.”
This order, on the face of it, indicates that learned Magistrate has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and has mechanically passed the said order.
3. Law is now well settled that even at the stage of passing an order under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate is required to consider the allegation or averments made in the complaint and has to find out whether the allegations made in the complaint constitute cognizable or non-cognizable offences.
4. It is now well settled that even at the stage of referring the complaint for investigation by the police, learned Special Judge is required to apply his judicious mind and ascertain as to whether the allegations made in the complaint make out any cognisable or non-cognisable offence requiring investigation by the police or any other authorities. In MAKSUD SAIYED vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS, (2008) 5 SCC 668, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the requirement of application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is of paramount importance. The learned Magistrate having failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case, in my view, the impugned order directing investigation by the jurisdictional Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the consequent charge sheet laid against the petitioners is liable to be set aside.
Consequently, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.04.2013 passed by the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in PCR.No.68/2013 (Crime No.312/2013) is set-aside. The matter is remitted to learned Magistrate to re-consider the private complaint afresh in the light of the principles laid down in the above decision. All legal and factual contentions urged by the parties are left open for consideration at appropriate stage.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss.
CT:RG