IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6299 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAN KUMAR S/O M. DEVADAS, AGED 55 YEARS, COUNCILOR WARD NO.104 BBMP, RESIDING AT NO.5/4 1ST ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, GOVINDARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: M B CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT ANNEX BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 2. SMT. S. JAYASHEELA W/O N. MANJUNATHA, D/O LATE B.R.SRIRAM, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3, LAKSHMI NARASIMHAPPA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, NEAR GKM COLLEGE, JARAGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560078 3. SRI. T.N. JAVARAYI GOWDA S/O LATE NIJAGUNAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.121, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560079 4. SRI. T.N.KRISHNAPPA S/O SUBBEGOWDA, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O SHIVAGIRI, NO.2291, 4TH MAIN, ROAD, BENGALURU-560040 5. SMT. G. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE B.R.SRIRAM, AGED 63 YEARS, 6. SRI. S. NARENDRA S/O LATE B.R.SRIRAM, AGED 41 YEARS, 7. SRI. S. MANJUNATH S/O LATE B.R.SRIRAM, AGED 36 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 7 ARE R/AT NO.7, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 Ms. ASHMITHA NAYANA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.9950/2012 ON THE FILE OF I ACMM, BANGALORE FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 471, 474 R/W 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.9950/2012. He has sought to quash the said proceedings on the ground that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not prima facie make out the offences under Sections 471, 474 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and that the order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate referring the private complaint for investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. does not reflect application of mind by the learned Magistrate and therefore, registration of case as well as consequent investigation and submission of charge sheet against the petitioner is illegal and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. On going through the material on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings. Though the order passed by the learned Magistrate referring the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. does not in so many words state that the Magistrate has applied its mind, but the order sheet indicates that only after going through the contents of the complaint, the learned Magistrate found it necessary to refer the same for investigation by the police. The said order was passed in 2011. The charge sheet was filed in the year 2012. Since then, the matter is seized by the learned Magistrate. The material collected by the investigating agency prima facie constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner.
4. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge on such grounds available under law, the petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2016 filed for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
bkp Sd/- JUDGE