Ravi S/O Ramsingh Naik vs The State And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 7040 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.201514/2021

BETWEEN:

RAVI S/O RAMSINGH NAIK
AGE 45 YEARS
OCC: II DIVISION SURVEYOR
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
LAND RECORDS CITY SURVEY OFFICE
VIJAYAPURA - 586101
R/O INDI, DIST VIJAYAPURA                ...PETITIONER

           (BY SRI ASHOK MULAGE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE
THROUGH KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTA PS
VIJAYAPURA, DIST VIJAYAPURA
REP. BY ITS SPP

2. SHRI NASIR
S/O HASSANSAB ATHANI
AGED 35 YEARS
OCC PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O HAMEED NAGAR, NAUBAGH
VIJAYAPURA, DIST VIJAYAPURA-586101
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
         (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPP FOR R1;
                  SRI M.S. BAGALI FOR R2)
                                 2




    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS COURT TO QUASH THE FIR,
COMPLAINT AND CHARGESHEET IN SPL. CASE NO.1/2013
AGAINST THE PETITIONER ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL JUDGE) COURT,
BIJAPUR AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and

the learned counsel for the second respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would vehemently contend that case registered

against the accused No.1 was quashed in Crl.P.No.

201080/2014 vide order dated 05.09.2019. In view of the

principles laid down in the case of ANIL KUMAR AND

OTHERS vs M.K.AIYAPPA AND ANOTHER reported in

(2013)10 SCC 705 wherein, the Apex Court has held that

the very order of reference under Section 156(3) of

Cr.P.C., suffers from legal infirmity for want of sanction

order.

3. The learned counsel for the second respondent

also makes the submission that the respondent No.2 is not

pursuing the complaint as the matter relates to the

Dharga. The learned SPP for the first respondent also not

disputed the fact that this Court has already quashed the

criminal case against the accused No.1. When such being

the factual aspects of the case, there is a force in the

contention of the petitioner counsel. As already the matter

has been quashed against the accused No.1 and also in

view of the judgment in Anil Kumar's case, it is made

clear that sanction is necessary even before invoking

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., hence, the proceedings initiated

against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed.

4. In view of disposal of the main petition,

I.A.No.1/2021 for stay does not survive for consideration

and accordingly, it is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SAN