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.4816 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. V.NARAYANA S/O LATE N VENKATESWARAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.21,CHURCH ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004 2. S S SWAMY S/O LATE S MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.16,I STAGE,RAILWAY COLONY, LOTTEGOLLAHALLI,NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 094 (BY SRI: S G BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
V.S.CHANDRAMOULI S/O V L SATYANARAYANA, MAJOR PROMOTER-DIRECTOR, M/S VALSAD PETRO CHEMICAL LTD., 33/38-A,I FLOOR,6TH CROSS, ... PETITIONERS 12TH MAIN,GOKUL I STAGE,I PHASE,MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: JOSE SABASTIAN, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.18427/11 IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE, IN SO FAR AS THE PETRS. ARE CONCERNED.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.18427/2011 on the file of IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru have sought to quash the summons issued to them to face the charges under Sections 408, 406, 420, 468, 471 r/w 149 & 120B of Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that initially the learned Magistrate had referred the complaint for investigation by the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, ‘B’ report was submitted before the Court. However, without passing any orders on the said ‘B’ report, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to issue summons to the petitioners, which is contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Code and the decision laid down by this Court in Dr. Ravikumar vs. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha and Another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725.
3. Disputing the contentions, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial court has not committed any error or illegality either procedurally or in taking action for the alleged offences. The ‘B’ report submitted by the jurisdictional Court was objected by the complainant by filing a protest petition and after recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses, by order dated 12.09.2007, the said ‘B’ report was accepted and accordingly, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.. The complainant carried the matter in revision in Criminal Revision Petition No.690/2007 under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and by order dated 19.09.2009, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was set-aside and the matter was remitted to the trial court to afford an opportunity to the complainant to examine himself and his witnesses in support of the accusations. Accordingly, after recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, by the impugned order, the trial court took cognizance of the offences and issued summons and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the trial court.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent and on going through the impugned order, I do not find any error or illegality in the procedure adopted by the trial court. The records indicate that on receiving the ‘B’ report, the trial court issued notice to the complainant. The complaint filed protest petition, whereafter, he let in his evidence and examined two witnesses and considering the same, by order dated 12.09.2007, ‘B’ report was accepted. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court has not passed any order on the said ‘B’ report is factually not correct. After remand, the trial court has recorded the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and having satisfied that the constituents of the alleged offences are prima-facie made out has issued summons on 26.02.2013 to the petitioners. This order, therefore. in my view is in consonance with the provisions of law and the procedure laid down by this Court in the above decision. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-