IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.11390 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SHYAM PRASAD KAILAR K. S/O.BALAKRISHNA BHAT P ADVOCATE AGE 30 YEARS R/AT PARADKA HOUSE ILANTHILA VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK BIA UPPINANGADY D.K.-574 241. … PETITIONER (BY SRI.SACHIN B.S., ADV.) AND:
1. PADMANABA ALVA S/O.JATHAPPA ALVA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT BOLODI HOUSE KEDAMBADI VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 201 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-2 SRI.THARANATH SHETTY K., ADV. FOR R-1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS DTD: 15.02.2018 IN PCR NO.6/2018 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PUTTUR INCLUDING FIR IN CRIM ENO.0017/2018 DTD: 23.02.2018 REGISTERED BY PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing of entire proceedings dated 15.02.2018 in PCR No.6/2018 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur including FIR in Crime No.0017/2018 dated 23.02.2018 registered by Puttur Rural police station in so far as petitioner concerned as per Annexure-A and B.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not furnished copy of the PCR along with affidavit stated to have been filed by the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is non-compliance of Sections 154(1), 154(3) Cr.P.C. and further, learned Magistrate has not passed a speaking order with reference to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was further contended that petitioner is an advocate. He had filed certain litigation on behalf of co- accused. Those are the allegations leveled against the petitioner herein. Therefore, entire proceedings dated 15.02.2018 in PCR No.6/2018 on the file of the Addl. Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur including FIR in Cr.No.17/2018 dated 23.02.2018 is liable to be set- aside. In support of the petitioner’s contention he relied on two decisions in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2015)6 SCC 287 and the aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs GANGAMMA B reported in 2018(5) KLJ 150 (para.3).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner has not made available copy of the PCR No.6/2018 along with the affidavit. Therefore, petitioner’s contention that there is non-compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) is untenable. Further, with reference to Section 156(3), learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the very same decision in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA (supra) (para.2) to the extent that if the Magistrate has gone through the compliant, documents and other materials, it is sufficient to pass order under Section 156(3); He need not examine the correctness of the complaint/documents. In other words, he need not hold a mini trial before invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner with reference to the offences quoted in the PCR and it is not merely that petitioner had filed case on behalf of the co-accused.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The questions for consideration in the present petition is, “(i) Whether the respondent has complied Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. or not? (ii) whether Magistrate is required to pass a speaking order under Section 156(3) or not?:
6. Perusal of PCR and affidavit, it is crystal clear that there is compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3).
Further, in respect of passing a speaking order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate is concerned, it is to be noted that while invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., jurisdictional Magistrate need not hold a mini trial and pass an order as to whether complainant has made out a case against the accused or not. In the order, if he has disclosed that he has taken note off the complaint and its contents, that suffice to show that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is complied with. If the Magistrate considers and pass a speaking order with reference to the gist of the alleged complaint read with the documents and other materials, it would be nothing but mini trial. In view of these facts and circumstances and the fact that the allegations prima facie attract certain offences, consequently petitioner has not made out a case. Cited decision on behalf of petitioner does not assist him, since complaint is supported by affidavit, merely there were certain alleged errors in the affidavit. One cannot come to the conclusion that there is non-compliance to Sec.154 (1), 154 (3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to make necessary application for discharge at the appropriate stage in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Brn