Sri Pradeep Kumar P vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1506 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

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

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.5385/2020

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI PRADEEP KUMAR P.,
     S/O PUTTARAJU,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     R/A NO.154/AB, NEW COLONY BLOCK,
     NWC HOUSE, NEW TOWN,
     3RD CROSS, NEAR BALA BHARATHI SCHOOL,
     BHADRAVATHI - 577301
     SHIVAMOGGA DIST.

2.   SRI UDAY DESHPANDE,
     S/O ANANTHA RAO,
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
     R/O MARKET ROAD, ANANDAPURAM,
     SAGARA TALUK-577401.
     SHIVAMOGGA DIST.

3.   MISS VEENA N.
     D/O NARAYAN,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     R/A J H PATEL LAYOUT,
     NEAR VETERINARY COLLEGE,
     SOMINAKOPPA 577201.
     SHIVAMOGGA DIST.

4.   SRI PUTTARAJU,
     S/O LINGAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     R/A NO.154/AB, NEW COLONY BLOCK,
     NWC HOUSE, NEW TOWN,
                               2



       3RD CROSS, NEAR BALA BHARATHI SCHOOL,
       BHADRAVATHI -577301.
       SHIVAMOGGA DIST.

5.     SRI AMBARISH,
       S/O NARAYANAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
       OWNER: NARAYANA TRAINING SERVICES,
       GOWRIBIDANUR-561208.
       CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST.                    ...PETITIONERS

             (BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY KOTE POLICE STATION,
       SHIVAMOGGA.
       REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU-560001.

2.     SRI ADARSH K R,
       S/O RAMANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
       R/A ASHWINI NILAYA,
       OPP. PADMA TALKIES,
       GOPALA MAIN ROAD,
       SHIVAMOGGA-577201.                   ... RESPONDENTS

             (BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1,
     NOTICE TO R-2 HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 08.01.2021)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2020 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA IN PCR No.2/2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY
TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.37/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 406, 417, 420 READ WITH
SECTION 149 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THE CRL.P.
                                3



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

                           ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to quash the order dated 26.02.2020 passed in

P.C.R.No.2/2020 referring the matter for investigation invoking

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under

Sections 506, 406, 417, 420 and 149 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent

No.2 had filed a private complaint, which is numbered as

P.C.R.No.2/2020 and the learned Magistrate after receiving the

complaint, passed an order "Perused. Complaint is referred

under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that the learned Magistrate without looking into the contents of

the complaint passed the impugned order. The complaint is not

supported by any affidavit and there is no compliance under

Section 154(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and on perusal of the order sheet dated 26.02.2020, except

mentioning "Perused", the learned Magistrate has not applied his

judicious mind whether it is a fit case to refer the matter under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the judgment in the

case of MAKSUD SAIYED v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND

OTHERS reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668 has held that the

learned Magistrate has to look into the contents of the complaint

even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety

and only after going through the contents of the complaint, the

learned Magistrate can exercise the power under Section 156(3)

of Cr.P.C.

5. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment

referred supra and also having perused the contents of the order

of the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has not applied

his judicious mind while referring the matter under Section

156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not even looked

into the contents of the complaint as to whether it constitutes an

offence invoked against the petitioners. Hence, it is a fit case to

exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the

order dated 26.02.2020 and it requires the matter to be remitted

to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 26.02.2020, is hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh. The learned Magistrate shall apply his judicious mind and pass appropriate orders.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD