IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1681 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. Sri Kallappa S/o Kollappa Aged about 72 years 2. Smt. Chandramma W/o Gurumurthy Aged about 38 years 3. Smt. Roopa D/o Kallappa Aged about 31 years 4. Smt. Savithramma @ Shilpa D/o Kallappa Aged about 27 years 5. Smt. Susheelamma D/o Kallappa Aged about 38 years 6. Smt. Chandramma @ Chandramathi D/o Kallappa Aged about 32 years All are R/at Neethadi Village Davanagere Taluk and District-577 556.
(By Sri V. B. Siddaramaiah - Advocate) …Petitioners AND:
1. State by Mayakonda Police Station Davanagere Taluk and District – 577 001.
2. Smt. Gangamma W/o Shivamurthy Aged about 31 years R/at Neerthadi Village Davanagere Taluk and District – 577556.
...Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage Additional SPP for R-1; R-2 served and unrepresented) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 18.12.2012 passed in CC No. 3035/2012 (Crime No. 114/2008), on the file of the JMFC-II Court, Davanagere.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is filed by Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 in C.C.No.3035/2012 (Cr.No.114/2008) seeking quashment of the charge-sheet laid against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 114, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented.
3. The complainant and petitioners are related to each other. A civil dispute is said to have been pending between the complainant and petitioners and other accused. In that background, on 03.09.2008 petitioners and other accused persons alleged to have assaulted the complainant and her mother. In respect of this incident, second respondent lodged a report before the Mayakonda police. After investigation the investigation officer filed ‘B’ Summary Report. The complainant submitted her protest petition. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses and by the impugned order dated 18.12.2012 rejected the ‘B’ Summary Report and issued summons to the petitioners. The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamalapati Trivedi vs. State of West Bengal (1980) SCC 91 which is followed by this Court in Dr.Ravikumar vs.
Mrs.KMC Vasantha (ILR 2018 KAR 1725).
4. As per the guidelines laid down in the above decisions, before recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate was required to consider the ‘B’ Summary Report. In the case on hand, learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and only thereafter, rejected the ‘B’ Summary Report. This procedure being contrary to the guidelines laid down in the above decisions, issuance of summons and consequent proceedings by the Trial Court are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the JMFC II Court, Davanagere in C.C.No.3035/2012 (Cr.No.114/2008) is set-aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to reconsider the ‘B’ Summary Report in the light of the guidelines laid down in the above decisions.
DKB Sd/- JUDGE