IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9302 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
V.CHANDRASHEKAR (SHEKARPOORNA) AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A NO.103, 1ST BLOCK 1ST PHASE, JANAPRIYA LAKE VIEW APARTMENT KODICHIKKANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 076 … PETITIONER (BY MR.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, PETITIONER PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UPPARPETE POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 2. H.VISHWANATH S/O LATE H.VENKATANARANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.2511, 26TH CROSS 17TH MAIN, BSK II STAGE NEAR BDA COMPLEX BANGALORE – 560 070 3. MR.SYED MUNEER (ALIAS MUNEER) S/O SYED AMEER AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.68/41, 3RD MAIN KAUSAR NAGAR, R.T.NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032 OFFICE ADDRESS:
SUPERINTENDENT KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 4. MR.G.CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O RAMANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.347, 8TH MAIN CHANNAMANAKERE ACHUKAT BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE – 560 085 .. RESPONDENTS (By Mr.VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) - - -
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PARTY-IN-PERSON PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE V ACMM DATED 11.10.2018 BY VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ORDER V ACMM TO RESTORE THE PCR TO OLD NUMBER I.E. 11306/2015, ONCE RESTORED, DIRECT V ACMM COURT TO EXPEDITE THE PCR NO.11306/2015 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.V.Chandrashekar, petitioner – party-in-person. Sri.Vijaykumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.
None for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 10.08.2018 and 11.10.2018 passed by the 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was allegedly threatened by respondent No.2 on 02.04.2015. The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint before the police authorities. However, no action in the matter was taken. The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code. The Magistrate directed the Station House Officer, Upparpet Police Station to investigate the complaint and to file the final report. Thereupon, first information report vide Crime No.409/2015 was registered and a ‘B’ report dated 06.11.2015 was submitted by the investigating officer in Crime No.409/2015 before the Magistrate. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner on 10.08.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 10.09.2018 with a prayer to reopen the case and permit the petitioner to file protest petition on ‘B’ report. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Magistrate by an order dated 11.10.2018.
5. Party-in-person submitted that the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to reopen the case by setting aside the order dated 10.08.2018. It is further submitted that the petitioner was suffering from various ailments. Therefore, he could not prosecute the complaint filed by him and file the protest petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the certified copy of the ‘B’ report was obtained by the petitioner in the year 2015 itself and the petitioner was well aware about filing of the ‘B’ report. However, he was diligent in prosecuting the complaint and no ground has been made for restoration of the case and for grant of permission to the petitioner to file the protest petition.
7. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. The ‘B’ report was filed on 30.11.2015. The petitioner has obtained certified copy of ‘B’ report in the year 2015 itself. However, the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the complaint. The Magistrate accepted the ‘B’ report on 10.08.2018. After one month, an application was filed to reopen the case and to permit the petitioner to file the protest petition. It has further been held that the petitioner in support of his contention that he was suffering from various ailments, has filed the medical documents of the year 2008 along with the application seeking reopening of the case and to permit him to file the protest petition in the year 2018. Therefore, it has been held by the Magistrate that no sufficient grounds have been made out to reopen the case and to permit the petitioner to file the protest petition. However, the petitioner has been granted the liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate forum.
8. The order passed by the Magistrate neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RV