IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2622 OF 2013 BETWEEN :
1. T R MANJUNATH HEGDE S/O LATE T.R. RAMANNA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 1/5-2, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE 560 052 2. T.R. RAVI HEGDE S/O LATE T.R. RAMANNA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, G8 PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENTS, 9TH MAIN, R.M.V. EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 080 3. T.R NARENDRA HEGDE S/O LATE T.R. RAMANNA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, G8 PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENTS, 9TH MAIN, R.M.V. EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 080 4. T.R. SATISH HEGDE S/O LATE T.R. RAMANNA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, G 8 PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENTS, 9TH MAIN, R.M.V. EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 080 PETITIONERS (BY SRI S G BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE BY CBI/SPE BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE 560032 BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE 2. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK NO.26-27, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL. PP FOR R.1 SRI S.R.HARISH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R.2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THIS COURT TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.NO.89/95 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following :
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Though various contentions are urged by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings, yet at the time of hearing, learned counsel has primarily banked upon the contention that without taking cognizance of the offences, the impugned proceedings have been initiated contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Code. Learned counsel has taken me through the order sheet maintained by the trial Court in Spl. CC No.89/1995. The said order sheet discloses that the charge sheet was submitted by the Public Prosecutor before the learned Special Judge on 03.04.1995 and after verification, the same was put up for orders. On the same day, the learned Special Judge has passed the following order:
“Register the case and Issue Summons to the accused by 4/7”
3. The above order cannot be construed as an order of taking cognizance of the offences. Even in the subsequent order sheet, there is nothing to show that the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offences either under IPC or under the provisions of the PC Act. As a result, the learned Magistrate has not derived any authority or jurisdiction to try the petitioner for the alleged offences.
4. Consequently the proceedings pending before the learned Special Judge in Spl.C.C.No.89/1995 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the learned Special Judge to proceed from the stage of taking cognizance. All the contentions urged by the respective parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE AKC