IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7501 /2013 BETWEEN:
1. P.R. BASAVARAJU TAHSILDAR TUMKUR TALUK-572 104.
2. THIMMAIAH C.S. REVENUE INSPECTOR URDIGER HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK-572 104. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI R.P. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KYATSANDRA POLICE TUMKUR TALUK REPRESENTED BY SPP BANGALORE-560 001.
2. RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O. VEERADASAPPA AGED 47 YEARS.
3. CHIKKARAMAKKA W/O. RAMADRISHNAIAH AGED 37 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF GOVINDANAYAKANAPALYA HIREDIDDAWADI POST URDIGERE HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK-572 104. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 27.05.2008 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-V, TUMKUR IN CRL.RP.NO.194/2007 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. C.J. (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, TUMKUR C.C.NO.1602/2008 (ANNEXURE-B).
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 Nos.2 and 3 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2008 passed by the FTC-V, Tumkur in Crl.R.P.No.194/2007, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the learned JMFC, Tumkur directing the trial Judge to register the case against the petitioners.
3. Among other legal contentions raised in the petition, the petitioners have urged that the impugned order was passed by the Revisional Court without issuing notice to them. Hence the impugned order is bad in law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors reported in 2013 Crl.L.J.144(1). Wherein it is held that:
“In a case where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 either at the stage of Section 200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the Magistrate under Section 202 or on receipt of the report from the police or from any person to whom the direction was issued by the Magistrate to investigate into the allegations in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal is termination of complaint proceedings. The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203 although it is at preliminary stage nevertheless results in termination of proceedings in a compliant against the persons who are alleged to have committed crime. Once a challenge is laid to such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court of Sessions Judge, by virtue Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get right of hearing before revisional court although such order was passed without their participation. The right given to “accused” or “the other person” under Section 401(2) of being heard before the revisional court to defend an order which operates in his favour should not be confused with the proceedings before a Magistrate under Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204. In the revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge at the instance of complainant challenging the order of dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could happen is reversal of the order of the Magistrate and revival of the complaint. It is in this view of the matter that the accused or other person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of express provision contained in Section 401(2). The stage is not important whether it is pre- process stage or post process stage. It is, therefore, clear that upon challenge to the legality of the order under Section 203 dismissing a complaint being laid by the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code.”
4. In the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge has observed that, since the private complaint came to be dismissed by accepting final report (‘B’ report), the notice to the petitioners herein was dispensed with. Since the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the matter was remitted to register the case without notice to the petitioner before the Revisional Court, on this sole ground petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly petition is allowed. The Impugned order dated 27.05.2008 passed by the Fast Track Court-V in Crl.R.P.No.194/2007 is set aside.
The matter is remitted to the Revisional Court for disposal of the same in accordance with law after issuing notice to the petitioners and other respondents therein. Since the matter is of the year 2007, the parties to this petition shall appear before the Revisional Court on 04.06.2019 without any further notice. The Revisional Court shall issue notice to other parties.
All other legal contentions urged by the petitioners are left open for consideration at the appropriate stage.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-