IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1091 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT S/O. ISHWARA BHAT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R @ ISHA VASYAM MODANKAPU POST BANTWAL MOODA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.-574 219. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ISMAIL M. MUSBA, ADV.) AND:
NAVIN KUMAR A.V. S/O. VISHNU BHAT AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R@ ARALIKATTE KALANJA VILLAGE AND POST SULLIA TALUK D.K.-574 217. ...RESPONDENT (BY G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRI, ADV.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO (I) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2013 BY WHICH THE JMFC, SULLIA, D.K., WAS PLEASED TO REGISTER A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND ISSUE SUMMONS TO ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.1061/2013, PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A. (II)QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1061/13 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC, SULLIA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2013 whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the ‘B’ Summary Report submitted by the police and issued summons to the petitioner to answer the charges for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri. Ismail M Musba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. G.Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, police submitted ‘B’ summary report. Learned Magistrate recorded sworn statement of the complainant and by the impugned order issued summons to the petitioner.
4. The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamalapati Trivedi Vs. State of West Bengal which is followed by this Court in the case of Dr. Ravi Kumar Vs. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha and Another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725.
5. As per the law laid down in the above decision, learned Magistrate is required to consider ‘B’ report and pass an appropriate order either rejecting or accepting ‘B’ report and only thereafter, has to record the sworn statement.
6. In the case on hand, after recording sworn statement of the complainant and at the stage of final order, learned Magistrate rejected ‘B’ report which is not in consonance of the guidelines laid down in the above decision. As a result, petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 03.12.2013 passed by the JMFC, Sullia, D.K. in C.C.No.1061/2013 is set aside.
The matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate to reconsider the ‘B’ summary report as per the guidelines laid down in the above decisions.
Since the matter is pending from 2009, the learned Magistrate is directed to complete the exercise within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-