IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7723 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHESH KUMAR P., S/O. PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, 4TH MAIN ROAD, BANK OF BARODA COLONY, PUTTENAHALLI, , J.P. NAGAR 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. REP:SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. MAHESHA, S/O. MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.2088, 7TH MAIN, NEAR BALAMURI TEMPLE, KUVEMPU ROAD, K.S. LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 078. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1] THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.09.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN CC NO.21193/2017 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 242(3) OF CR.P.C. UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE PETITION IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“Quash the impugned order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the learned XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in CC No.21193/2017 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C. under Annexure-A and allow the petition in the above case.”
2. The perusal of the Order dated 17.09.2019, the Presiding Officer has assigned the reasons in para 10, which reads as under:
“10. According to prosecution case, there is dispute between accused and his wife Tejaswini in respect of dowry. In order to settle the matter, panchayath was convened on 18.5.2017. At about 3.00 pm accused returned along with Appaji Mahesh Kumar to house of PW1 and quarreled with CW1 to other person voluntarily assaulted with hands and club and abused in filthy language and given life threat. According to statement of witnesses they are eye witnesses to alleged incident. Without touching the merits of the case, witnesses, ie., CW2 to CW5 are natural witnesses. The prosecution relying on the statement of these witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused person recorded U/s.161 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution is not permitted to travel beyond statement of witnesses. Under these circumstances, there is no scope for improvements, developments in this case. There is no materials for deferral of cross- examination of PW1.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision reported in 2018(4) Crimes 288 (SC) in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Rasheed.
4. There is no infirmity in the reasoning assigned by the Court below, particularly in para 10 cited supra as to how the application filed under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C. is rejected. The cited decision on behalf of the petitioner is relating to interpretation of Section 231(2) Cr.P.C.
5. In the cited decision itself an observation has been made it all depends on facts of each case. Having regard to the reasoning assigned at para 10 of the impugned order dated 17.09.2019, the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2019 filed for stay does not survive for consideration.
SD/- JUDGE Ksm*