IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7365 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. MR THIRUMALAGIRI GOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2. MR. RAJU S/O THIRUMALAGIRI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. MR.SATHIAH S/O THIRUMALAGIRI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. MR. HARISHA S/O C.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 5. SMT. SOWBHAGYA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 6. MR. THIMMAPPA S/O AYYANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, PETITIONERS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ALLIMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR-562 117.
... PETITIONERS (By Sri: AJITH A. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE KANAKAPURA RURAL POLICE, KANAKAPURA TALUK-571511 BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER 2. SHIVARAMU S/O PUTTARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF ALLIMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR-571 511.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.08.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA IN EFFECT REJECTING THE 'B' REPORT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AND REGISTERING A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS VIDE C.C.NO.700/2016 WHILE TAKING CONGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, BASED ON A PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 State.
2. The petitioners have challenged the cognizance taken against them by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura for the alleged offences punishable under sections 143, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 Indian Penal Code.
3. One Sri. Shivaramu filed a private complaint before the court below in PCR No.202/2015. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. After investigation the jurisdictional police filed a ‘B’ report. However, the complainant filed a protest petition and examined himself before the Court. The learned Magistrate rejected the ‘B’ report and consequently took cognizance of the above offences and issued summons to the petitioners herein to face trial.
4. The main contention of the petitioners is that during the investigation, the jurisdictional police have examined five villagers whose statements relate to a totally different dispute unconnected to the alleged incident. Further, the learned counsel submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the non-examination of one Munidevi against whom the complainant has filed a civil suit and whose name has been mentioned in the complaint.
5. Regarding the second submission made by the learned counsel, it is relevant to note that the defence of an accused cannot be the subject matter of investigation as it is always open for the accused to substantiate his defence during trial. Regarding the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, it is trite law that at the stage of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed order. What requires at that stage is application of mind to the contents of the petition for the purpose of proceeding in the matter. The impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate had considered the sworn statement of the petitioner and has referred to the ‘B’ report filed by the jurisdictional police and has found it necessary to take cognizance of the matter. The contention of the petitioners that the material on record is not sufficient to frame a charge or to proceed in the matter cannot be accepted. This is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Hence, the petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2016 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-