CRL.P. NO.9962/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9962 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
RICHARD RERNANDES S/O MARSEL FERNANDE, A/A 45 YEARS R/AT PARABALLI, MAVINAKETTE MANINALKUR VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-574 265 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
MELVIN REGO S/O LATE KAMIL REGO AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS YEYIKURI HOUSE MANINALKUR POST BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-574 265 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. P.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL D.K., IN P.C.NO.31/2015 (C.C.NO.2211/2016) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 500 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
Heard.
ORDER CRL.P. NO.9962/2017 2. Petitioner has lodged a complaint in Bantwala Police Station on 20.05.2015 stating that he had lost his passport and other documents and he entertained strong suspicion against the respondent. Pursuant thereto, based on the said complaint, police summoned the respondent and made enquiry. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the materials alleged to have been lost by the petitioner were recovered from a different place.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the fact that petitioner has lodged a false complaint, respondent filed a private complaint in PCR No.31/2015 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwala, alleging defamation. Learned Magistrate by order dated 26.12.2016 has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Section 500 of CRL.P. NO.9962/2017 IPC and issued process, after recording sworn statement of complainant.
4. Shri Kethan Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner argued that order of taking cognizance is bad in law inasmuch as the reading of entire complaint does not disclose commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.
5. Shri P.P.Hegde, learned advocate for the respondent argued in support of the private complaint.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned advocates for the parties and perused the records.
7. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance. The impugned order is a well reasoned order. Learned Magistrate has recorded that he has perused the complaint and sworn statement. The contents of sworn statement CRL.P. NO.9962/2017 corroborates with the contents of the complaint. Adverting to two decisions of the Supreme Court of India, learned Magistrate has recorded that he is satisfied that sufficient materials are available on record to proceed further. In the circumstances, the impugned order being a speaking order, no exception can be taken to the same. Hence, no ground is made out to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Resultantly, this petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.
9. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.2/2018 does not survive for consideration and it is also dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.