Ningappa vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3495 Kant

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

  CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.17/2021


BETWEEN:

NINGAPPA
S/O. NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT LOKIKERE
VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE
PIN 541 014                           ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HADADI POLICE STATION
DAVANAGERE
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 01                        ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ORDER OF
REMANDING TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FRESH DISPOSAL
                               2

PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.66/2019 DATED 01.12.2020 BY THE
LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DAVANAGERE.

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

                          ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed

to take notice for respondent-State. Let a copy of the

Criminal Revision Petition be served on learned HCGP

forthwith.

2. Heard Sri Lakshmikanth K., learned counsel for

the Revision Petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

3. The present Revision Petition is filed against

the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal

Appeal No.62/2016 dated 02.02.2019, whereby the order

passed in C.C.No.62/2016 acquitted the Revision Petitioner

for the offences punishable under the provisions of Section

379 IPC read with Sections 3(1) and 42(1) of KMMC Rules,

1994 and directed for re-trial.

4. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner

submits that the very taking of cognizance for the offences

punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sections 3(1) and

42(1) of KMMC Rules, 1994 against the accused was illegal

as there was no proper complaint filed by the Competent

Authority and the case came to be filed by the police.

Hence, the very proceedings before the learned Magistrate

itself was illegal and nonest and thus, sought for setting

aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

5. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is disposed of

reserving liberty to the Revision Petitioner to approach the

appropriate forum to seek quashing of the complaint.

Office is directed to return the certified copies after

keeping the photocopies of the impugned orders.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KA*