IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6862 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SMITA H SHETTY W/O. SRI H P SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SRI. SHANKARARAMAN S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BOTH ARE AT M/S FOURESS ENGINEERING (P) LTD NO.2, 2ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058 (BY SRI: S G BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY S A MAJOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES BANGALORE DIVISION-10 ”KARMIKA BHAVANA”
2ND FLOOR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560029 ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.9646/12 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M.,BANGALORE.
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 Additional SPP for respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken serious exception to the order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate issuing summons to the petitioner. The order reads as under:
“Complainant is present. Perused. Cognizance of the offence is taken, since complainant is a public servant the Sworn statement is dispensed, Register and issue summons to accused. 13.07.2012.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the impugned order does not disclose the offence for which summons has been issued. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from basic infirmity and solely on this ground, impugned order is liable to be quashed.
4. The impugned order is not sustainable. The learned Magistrate has committed illegality which affects jurisdiction of the trial Court to proceed with the matter.
5. Accepting the objections, petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 17.04.2012 is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to consider the complaint afresh in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of ‘PARAVATAGOUDA v. REVANASHIDDAYYA’ reported in 2001 AIR Kant H.C. 658.
All other contentions urged by the petitioner are left open.
AN/-
Sd/- JUDGE