IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 536 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. Sri Ravi Purvankara S/o K. Purvankara Aged about 62 years Chairman of M/s. Purvankara Projects Ltd., 2. Sri. Ashish Purvankara S/o Ravi Purvankara Aged about 35 years Joint Managing Director of M/s. Purvankara Projects Ltd., 3. Sri. V. Manohar Aged about 55 years Deputy General Manager M/s. Purvankara Projects Ltd., 4. Sri Sunil Raj .R S/o K. Rajan Aged about 49 years Vice President (Legal) M/s. Purvankara Projects Ltd., All are available at No. 130/1, Ulsoor Road Bangalore – 560042.
5. Sri S. Vijayakumar S/o M. Sriramaiah Major in age Handiman Services Pvt., Ltd., Adugodi, Anepalya Bangalore – 560034.
(By Sri. C.V. Nagesh – Senior. Advocate for Sri Raghavendra .K – Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka By the Station House Officer Byappanahalli Police Station Bangalore – 560036.
2. Smt. B.S. Ramadevi Sub Inspector of Police Byappanahalli Police Station Bangalore – 560036.
…Petitioners ...Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage – Addl. SPP for Respondents) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to reverse and set aside the summons / communication / notice dated 06.12.2013 which has been over written as 6.1.2014 and issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore in relation to the said case and further be pleased to quash the proceedings that are being drawn in MAGCR No. 41/2013-14 pending before the Thasildar and Taluk Executive Magistrate, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. SPP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
2. Petitioners have called in question the correctness and legality of the proceedings initiated against them under Section 107 in Cr.No.337/2013.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset has pointed out that without making an order in writing as required under Section 111 Cr.P.C., the learned Taluka Executive Magistrate has called upon the petitioners to appear before him on 23.01.2014. Further, the said summons is not accompanied by an order under Section 111 Cr.P.C., as mandated under Section 114 Cr.P.C. Solely on these counts, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Further, he submits that having regard to the long lapse of time, the very purpose for initiating preventive action has become stale and therefore, he prays that the entire proceedings be quashed.
4. Learned Additional SPP appearing for Respondent No.2 however has argued in support of the impugned action.
5. On going through the records, it is noticed that on receipt of requisition from the Police Inspector of Byappanahalli Police Station, the office put up the proceedings before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Without even looking into the substance of the allegations made in the said complaint and without arriving at any satisfaction, the Taluka Executive Magistrate straightaway ordered summons to the petitioners, directing them to appear before him on 23.01.2014. The procedure followed by Taluka Executive Magistrate is manifestly opposed to Sections 111 and 114 of Cr.P.C. In view of Section 111 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate acting under Section 107 is required to make an order in writing before issuing summons to the petitioners / accused persons. Section 114 requires the said order to be accompanied along with the summons or warrant. Since these mandatory requirements have not been followed, the proceedings of the Taluka Executive Magistrate cannot be sustained.
6. Though in normal circumstance, the matter would have been remanded to the Taluka Executive Magistrate for reconsideration, but in the instant case, the complaint alleging breach of peace relates to the year 2013. Under the said circumstances, without ascertaining the present state of affairs, no purpose would be served in directing the Taluka Executive Magistrate to proceed with the very same requisition made by the Police Inspector.
7. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.337/2013 and the subsequent proceedings before the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Bangalore East Taluk, are hereby quashed.
SD/- JUDGE KS