IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P NO. 5492/2015 BETWEEN MR. S. VISWANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, S/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, 311-B, NO.16, 1ST CROSS, GANGANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 032. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. LAKSHMI S. B., ADV.) AND 1. SMT. RAMAMANI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE S. SRINIVASA RAO, C/O S. NAGENDRA B.E., APARTMENT NO.306, “C” BLOCK, PIONEER PARADISE, 15TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN, 7TH PHASE, J. P. NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 078.
2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE S. SUBBARAO, R/AT VIJAYAPURA MAIN ROAD, VIJAYAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135.
... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 4.5.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI IN PCR NO.185/2011.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in PCR No.185/2011 dismissing the complaint and accepting the ‘B’ Summary Report filed by the police.
3. There is fragrance of violation of law and procedure by the learned Magistrate, therefore, I am of the opinion that, this court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in spite of alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Facts divulges that, a private complaint came to be filed by the petitioner against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for various offences 420 , 424, 468, 474 r/w.
Section 34 IPC.
4. At the first instance, the learned Magistrate has referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. The police after thorough investigation, submitted a ‘B’ Summary Report to the court on 29.10.2014. The learned Magistrate has observed that, he has perused the ‘B’ Summary Report and the materials produced before the court by the police and also perused the objections filed to the ‘B’ Summary Report by the complainant. He has also observed that there are materials to proceed with the case and therefore, he has taken cognizance on the protest petition for the said offences and called upon the complainant for filing of sworn statement and also for examination of the witnesses. When once the cognizance is taken, the next stage is to examine the complainant and his witnesses and to pass appropriate order under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. But, very strangely, on 04.05.2015, the learned Magistrate has gone back and in an utter disregard to the order passed by him, on 29.10.2014, he passed another order accepting ‘B’ Summary Report and closing the complaint. The learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to accept the ‘B’ Summary Report, when once the ‘B’ Summary Report has already been rejected and the magistrate has taken cognizance on the protest petition and called upon the complainant to furnish the sworn statement.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, such an order passed by the learned Magistrate is not only procedural irregularity, but it is illegal, which has to be interfered with by this court by exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 04.05.2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in PCR No.185/2011 is quashed. The complaint in PCR No.185/2011 is restored on to the file of the said learned Magistrate. However, the complainant is directed to furnish the sworn statement and examine the witnesses on his side without any unnecessary delay as the order of the trial Court discloses that the complainant and his counsel remained absent continuously for long time. If the complainant does not appear before the court and file sworn statement and examine the witnesses on his side, on the date fixed by the trial Court, in future, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the said case.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*