IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7629 OF 2019 BETWEEN SRI SRINIVASA M G S/O SRI. M.GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571422.
KARNATAKA.
(BY SRI MURTHY D. NAIK, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE POLICE INSPECTOR K.M.DODDI POLICE STATION, K.M.DODDI CIRCLE, MANDYA-571422.
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.
2. MAHESHA M.K S/O SRI. KENCHEGOWDA AGED MAJOR, MUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, ...PETITIONER MANDYA DISTRICT-571422 KARNATAKA.
(BY SRI V.S.SHEELVANT, SPP A/W …RESPONDENTS SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2019 PASSED IN S.C.NO.122/2018 BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor.
2. The petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1 in S.C.No.122/2018 is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for discharge preferred by him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places on record, a copy of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.1288/2019.
4. The discharge applications came to be preferred by accused Nos.7, 1 and 8. All the three applications have been taken up together for consideration by the trial Court and came to be rejected by a common order dated 01.08.2019. The said order came to be challenged before this Court in the aforesaid Criminal Revision Petition whereby this Court, by order dated 28.11.2019 was pleased to appreciate the contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioners and was pleased to allow the petition and while so allowing, has set-aside the order dated 01.08.2019 in its entirety.
5. Paragraph No.10 of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.1288/2019 dated 28.11.2019 reads as under:
‘10. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the petition is allowed and the order passed by 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya dated 1.8.2019 in S.C.No.122/2018 is set aside and matter remitted back to the Court below to dispose in accordance with law.’ 6. From a reading of the above order, it is seen that the order dated 01.08.2019 has been set-aside in its entirety. Hence, the question of setting aside the order once again would not arise.
7. The petitioner had also made an effort to canvas the petition on the ground that cognizance is taken by the CAO/CMO and not by the Judge. On perusal of Annexure-A, it is seen that it is the check list maintained by the office. The entries by the Judge commences from the next page. Hence, the submission and clarification made by the learned State Public Prosecutor merits consideration. He would also point out the order dated 03.05.2017 whereby, the trial Court has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence.
Hence, the contention that cognizance is not taken by the Judge requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
8. As directed by this Court, the petitioner shall also be heard by the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider the application after taking into consideration the errors pointed out by this Court and shall make an endeavor to dispose of the application expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 and I.A.No.2/2019 does not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/- CT-HR