IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4792/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SWAMYGOWDA S/O LATE LAKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O DODDAMAGGE VILLAGE ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573102 2. M T SATHYANARAYANA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/PETE, HENTAGERE ROAD ARKALGUD TOWN AND TALUK HASSAN DISTIRCT-573102.
(BY SRI RAVIKUMAR N R, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. H B KRISHNA S/O Y K BABACHAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O PETE MAIN ROAD ARKALGUD TOWN AND TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573102 2. STATE BY ARKALGUD POLICE ARKALGUD HASSAN …PETITIONERS REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-50001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M., ADV. FOR R1 SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.3/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ARAKALGUD AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDER DATED 1.2.2016 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.120(B), 193, 200, 418, 463, 464, 465, 468, 471 & 477 OF IPC AT ANNEXURES - A, B, C, D TO THE PETITION ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned State Public Prosecutor – II for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioners have called in question the order dated 01.02.2016 whereby, the learned Magistrate has ordered for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are as follows:
A private complaint was filed by respondent No.1 herein, against the petitioners and others alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 193, 200, 418, 463, 464, 465, 468, 471 and 477 of IPC. Learned Magistrate referred the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a ‘B’ report. On hearing the complainant, the trial Court passed the impugned order which reads as under:
“Heard complainant., Complainant submitted the forged document has not bee seized by the police authority., Without seizing of document, the ‘B’ Report filed by the police authority., The police authority has having the power U/Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C., for further investigation. Hence, again complaint is referred for further investigation U/Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C., to investigate and report., Call on 28/04/2016.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset would submit that the learned Magistrate has not adverted his mind to the contents of the ‘B’ report. In the ‘B’ report, the investigating agency has narrated the process of the investigation undertaken by him and has specifically stated that during the course of investigation, he made a requisition to the civil Court to send the original sale agreement, which is the subject matter of investigation, and a response was received from the civil Court to the effect that suit itself had been decreed and the original documents were returned to learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2. In the light of the said facts, learned Magistrate ought to have considered whether the reasons assigned by the Investigating Officer to submit the ‘B’ report was justified and could be maintained. Instead, the learned Magistrate has proceeded on the assumption that the original agreement of sale was still retained in the civil Court and hence, the direction issued by the learned Magistrate for further investigation into the matter was uncalled for and has resulted in failure of justice.
5. Another defect noted in the impugned order is that, without rejecting the ‘B’ report, the learned Magistrate has ordered for further investigation. The learned Magistrate has not at all considered the reasons assigned by the investigating officer in the ‘B’ report and has not arrived at any independent conclusion to direct further investigation. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.02.2016 in P.C.R.No.03/2014 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Arkalgud, is quashed.
The matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate to rehear the parties afresh on the ‘B’ report submitted by the investigating officer and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj