IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5964 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI M S MANOHAR S/O SHIVAMURTHY M .G AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.663, 10TH CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560086 (BY SRI: P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 2. M/S TELESONIC NETWORKS LTD., NO.55, DIVYASHREE TOWERS, 3RD FLOOR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560029 ... PETITIONER REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: SATYANARAYANA S. CHALKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.579/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NELMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND ALLOW THE PETITION.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1.
Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments.
2. Though the petitioner has urged large number of contentions in the petition, in the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions to the order dated 23.04.2016 whereby the learned Magistrate has issued process to the accused persons. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant provisions of law are filled up in the pre-prepared order which indicates that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and without considering the material on record.
3. In this context, it may be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD., & ANR. vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ORS., wherein at para 28, it is held as under:-
“Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused”.
In view of the above, keeping open all legal and factual contentions, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.04.2016 is quashed. Matter is remitted to the learned magistrate to consider the charge sheet afresh and proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-