IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6371/2017 BETWEEN 1 . SRI N KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE NALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2 . SRI SURENDRA K S/O SRI N KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3 . SRI NALLAPPA K S/O SRI N KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NALLAPPA TRANSPORT HOUSE, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PAPAREDDYPALYA, (NEAR VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE) NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072 (BY SRI SHANKAR REDDY C, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KENGERI GATE SUB DIVISION, ...PETITIONERS BENGALURU CITY BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2 . SMT JANAKAMMA D/O LATE GANGARUDHRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.257,1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, PAPAREDDYPALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072 (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 SRI P N HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF PCR. NO.1233/2017 INITIATED U/S 200 OF CODE 416, 418, 420, 423, 424, 425, 463, 467, 468, 471, 120A(B), 34 OF IPC IN THE COURT OF V ACMM, BANGALORE AND QUASH THE FIR NO.35/2017 LODGED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT/ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 416, 418, 420, 423, 424, 425, 463, 467, 468, 471, 120A(B), 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter is coming up for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. At the outset, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, has held that unless and until the procedures contemplated under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure are complied with, a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, should not be entertained by the Magistrate.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the present case, it is an admitted fact that no police complaint was lodged by the second respondent before approaching the Magistrate by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that an averment has been made in the private complaint that the second respondent approached the jurisdictional police to file a complaint. However, it is admitted fairly by the learned Counsel that no material was placed before the Magistrate to support the contention of the second respondent that a complaint was, in fact, sought to be given before the Police and no material was placed before the Magistrate to show that the second respondent, on refusal on the part of the Police Officer in charge of a Police Station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), sent the substance of such information in writing and by post, to the Commissioner/Superintendent of Police concerned.
5. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 after arguing for sometime, would submit that liberty may be granted to the second respondent-complainant to follow the due course of law as contemplated in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka (supra).
6. In the light of the above, the petition is allowed.
The entire proceedings in PCR No.1233/2017 on the file of the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, are hereby quashed and set aside. Liberty is however reserved to the second respondent-complainant to comply with the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and proceed in accordance with law.
I.A.No.1/2019 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-