IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2445 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
Subrahmanya Bhat S/o Narayana Bhat Aged about 78 years R/at Nooji House, Vittal Mundoor, Bantwal Taluk.
(By Sri. Aruna Shyam M, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Through Sub-Inspector of Police, Vittal Police Station, D.K., Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
2. Sri Balanarayan Prasanna S/o Subrahmanya Bhat Major, Nooji House, Vittal Mundoor village, Bantwal taluk.
(By Sri.Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R1;
…Petitioner ...Respondents Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the orders dated 26.08.2004 and 07.01.2012 in PCR No.100/2003 and entire proceedings including C.C.NO.44/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K.
This Criminal Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is the father of respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 506, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, B report was filed by the police. Respondent No.2 filed objections thereto. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 26.08.2004 rejected ‘B report’ and took cognizance of the offences and posted the matter for recording sworn statement. After recording sworn statement of the complainant and a witness on his behalf, by order dated 07.01.2012 issued summons to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure followed by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law. That the learned Magistrate has failed to apply his mind to the facts. The sworn statement was recorded after six years of taking cognizance of alleged offences and hence, there is reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent however disputes the submissions. He contends that the learned Magistrate has scrupulously followed the procedure laid down under S.190 of Cr.P.C. as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court and submits that the complaint as well as the sworn statement disclose commission of offences alleged and hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records I find that the learned Magistrate has scrupulously followed the procedure and having applied his mind and arriving at a prima facie satisfaction that the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the sworn statement of the complainant and his witness prima facie disclose commission of the alleged offences has issued summons to the petitioner. I do not find any error or infirmity either in the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate or in the order of summons issued to the petitioner warranting interference under S.482 of Cr.P.C. The delay in recording the sworn statement having occasioned on the part of the Trial Court, the same cannot be taken as a circumstance to penalise the petitioner.
As a result, the petition is dismissed.
Having regard to the relationship between the parties and in view of the genuine attempts made by this Court to settle the matter amicably, the Trial Court shall consider the request if any made by the petitioner for discharge of the petitioner in accordance with law.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*