Karnataka High Court
Rajanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6648/2020
BETWEEN:
RAJANNA,
S/O SANNALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: ELECTRIC CONTRACTOR,
R/O No.20, 6th CROSS,
NEAR NEW CARMEL SCHOOL,
MUNNESHWARA BADAVANE,
HEGGANAHALLI,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-560 091. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI HANUMESH H.N., ADVOCATE (THROUGH V.C.)]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
RAJGOPALNAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU.
2. VINODA,
W/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
2
R/AT NO.40, 7TH CROSS,
MUNESHWARA LAYOUT,
HEGGANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 091. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2020 IN
PCR No.8542/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. C.M.M.,
BENGALURU THEREBY DIRECTING TO INVESTIGATION AND
SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF CR.NO.248/2020 AGAINST THE
PETITIIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
419, 420, 323 READ WITH SECTION 120B OF IPC AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING
THEREON.
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 set aside the order dated 29.08.2020 passed in
P.C.R.No.8542/2020 on the file of the VII Additional CMM,
Bengaluru in registering Crime No.248/2020.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent
No.2 herein had filed a private complaint against the petitioner
on 11.08.2020. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint
to respondent No.1 to investigate the matter and thereafter
registered the case invoking Sections 419, 420, 323 read with
Section 120B of IPC.
3. The grounds urged in the petition is that the learned
Magistrate has not applied his mind and mechanically passed the
order without adverting to the contents of the complaint and the
documents produced along with the complaint. Hence, it
requires interference of this Court.
4. Though the counsel has filed vakalath on behalf of
respondent No.2, he is not present before the Court.
5. Having perused the order dated 29.08.2020, the
learned Magistrate has passed the order "Heard complainant
counsel, perused the complaint, the photostat copies of some of
the documents. It is found that before proceeding further in the
matter, calling for investigation report is necessary" and referred
the matter for investigation invoking Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
6. Having perused the order, though the learned
Magistrate mentioned in the order that he perused the complaint
and photostat copies of some of the documents, he did not form
an opinion as to whether it is a fit case to refer the matter and
whether the complaint discloses the cognizable or non-
cognizable offence. The learned Magistrate failed to apply his
judicious mind and mechanically passed the order. The Apex
Court in its judgment in the case of MAKSUD SAIYED v. STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668
has categorically held that while exercising the discretionary
powers, the Magistrate has to apply his mind while ordering
police investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Without
applying the mind on these principles and not considering the
material on record passed the mechanical order which amounts
to an abuse of process of law.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29.08.2020 is
hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned
Magistrate to consider the matter afresh and to
apply his judicious mind and pass an
appropriate order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
