IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7532 OF 2018 Between:
Mr. Shreenath Joshi S/o Vittal Joshi, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Associate Editor TV5, Kannada News Channel, R/at No.17, Subramanya Nilaya, 1st Main Road, Muneshwar Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 050. …Petitioner (By Sri. Balakrsihna M.R., Advocate) And:
Hemanth .V S/o K. Venkateshaiah, Aged about 33 years, R/at No.75, 3rd Cross, Siddalingeshwara Nilaya, BEML Layout, 4th Stage, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 098. … Respondent (By Sri. Nagendra Shetty, Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order of taking cognizance and issue of process passed by the C.M.M., Bengaluru dated 21.03.2017 in PCR No.379/2017 (C.C. No.9811/2017) for the alleged offences P/U/S 420, 120B, 386 r/w 149 of IPC and quash the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner is concerned.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“1. Call for the entire records in PCR No.379/2017 (CC No.9811/2017) pending on the file of Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru.
2. Set aside the order of taking cognizance and issue of process passed by the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru dt.21.03.2017 in C.C.No.379/2017 (CC No.9811/2017) for the alleged offences punishable u/ss. 420, 120B & 386 r/w 149 IPC and quash the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner is concerned.
3. Pass such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Gist of the case is that there were certain disputes among the complainant – Sri. Hemanth .V and his wife-accused No.1-Smt. N.L. Rashmi. Perusal of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., it is seen that allegations against the petitioner is at paragraph No.12, which reads as under:-
“12. The 7th Accused who is an editor, in CNN news who has guided the 1st Accused and accompanied her to file false complaint and register FIR against the Complainant and his parents, accompanied 1st accused to obtain false medical certificate bribing different Hospital staff used undue influence, to commit this crime. His statement is recorded at R R Nagar Police Station in Crime No.154/2016.”
Other than the aforesaid allegations, no averments have been made in the complaint dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure-A).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the allegations stated in paragraph No.12 of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. do not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 420, 120B, 386 read with Section 149 of IPC. Consequently, proceedings initiated in PCR No.379/2017 (C.C. No.9811/2017) pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru vide order dated 21.03.2017 is contrary to the ingredients in respect of the aforesaid offences. Thus, the learned Magistrate has not appraised with reference to the allegations made against the petitioner read with the offences cited above.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the order dated 21.03.2017 submitted that learned Magistrate has taken note of the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint. Hence, no interference is called for.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the records.
6. On perusal of paragraph No.12 of the complaint, it is evident that allegations stated in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of Sections 420, 120B, 386 read with Section 149 of IPC. What has been stated in the complaint is that, petitioner is stated to have guided accused No.1 and accompanied her to file a false complaint and register FIR against complainant and his parents. Accused No.1 being a major, question of insisting for filing of false complaint and registration of FIR against the complainant and his parents are vague allegations.
Having regard to the contents of paragraph No.12 of the complaint alleged against petitioner, ingredients of Sections 420, 120B, 386 read with Section 149 of IPC are not attracted. Accordingly, order dated 21.03.2017 passed in C.C. No.379/2017 (C.C. No.9811/2017) is set aside. Petition stands allowed insofar as petitioner is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM