Sri Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 814 Kant

                              1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                           BEFORE

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

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.4717/2020
                            C/w
               CRIMINAL PETITION No.4355/2020

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4717/2020

BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATESH
S/O KAMALAKSHA KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
GIDADAKONENAHALLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 091.                               ... PETITIONER

               [BY SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE]

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE
       REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560 001.

2.     SRI DEEPAK N GANDHI
       S/O NARENDRA KUMAR
       AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
       NO.36/1, 8TH CROSS,
       MAGADI ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560023.                    ... RESPONDENTS

          [BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1
       SRI. GOPAL SING, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (THROUGH V.C.)]
                               2



      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CR.NO.61/2020 ARISING OUT OF PCR No.333/2016 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 324, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC VIDE ANNEXURE - A, B AND C.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4355/2020

BETWEEN:

SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD
S/O VENKATARAMANA TONDAMOOLE BHAT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
NO.28, FURTHER EXTENSION OF 7TH BLOCK,
SIR M VISHVESHWARAYA LAYOUT
NEXT TO MUNESHWARA TEMPLE
BANGALORE NORTH-560 091.                       ... PETITIONER

        [BY SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE (THROUGH V.C.)]

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE
       REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560001.

2.     DEEPAK N GANDHI
       S/O NARENDRA KUMAR
       AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
       NO.36/1, 8TH CROSS,
       MAGADI ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560023.                     ... RESPONDENTS

          [BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1
       SRI. GOPAL SING, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (THROUGH V.C.)]

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2016
                                   3



PASSED BY THE CJM, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN PCR
No.333/2016 AND CONSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF THE FIR IN
CR.NO.61/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 341, 504, 506, 324 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

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

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and the learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent - State.

2. These two petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2

praying this Court to set aside the order referring the matter to

police in PCR No.333/2016, as a result Crime No.61/2020 came

to be registered against these petitioners for the offence

punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504 and 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the private

complaint has been filed before the Magistrate and the

Magistrate after receiving the complaint registered the PCR and

referred the matter to the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that the Magistrate did not apply his

mind while referring the matter under Section 156(3) and the

procedure adopted by the Magistrate is against the settled law.

The Magistrate did not apply his mind and passed the order

mechanically referring the matter under Section 156(3).

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State would submit that the Magistrate after

receiving the complaint, referred the matter to the investigating

officer and thus, has not committed any error.

5. Having heard the submissions of both the learned

counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2

and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

State and on perusal of the order dated 14.10.2016, the learned

Magistrate simply mentioned that the complainant is present and

referred the matter to SHO by invoking Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

The Magistrate did not apply his mind whether it is a fit case to

refer the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said order

is against the law laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarath and Others

reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668 and hence, the order passed by

the Magistrate requires to be set aside.

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

following:-

ORDER

(i) The petitions are allowed.

(ii) The order dated 14.06.2016 passed by

the Magistrate on the file of CJM Rural

Court, Bengaluru Rural, is hereby set

aside and the matter is remitted back to

the Magistrate to consider the same

afresh and to apply the judicious mind

while taking a decision.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PYR