Karnataka High Court
Vitthal Nagappa Pattan vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101011/2018
BETWEEN:
1. VITTHAL NAGAPPA PATTAN
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SIDDHARTH NAGAR, ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT.REKHA W/O. VITTHAL PATTAN
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: SIDDHARTH NAGAR, ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. PRIYANKA D/O. VITTHAL PATTAN
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SIDDHARTH NAGAR, ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. KARTHIK S/O. VITTHAL PATTAN
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SIDDHARTH NAGAR, ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI PATIL M H, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD,
THORUGH ATHANI POLICE STATION.
2
2. SUREKHA GURUSIDDA KAMBLE
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: SIDDHARTH NAGAR, ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN UPPER, HCGP, FOR R.1;
R.2 - NOTICE SERVED.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF
THE CASE IN C.C.NO.121/2016, ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, ATHANI, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS
143, 147, 323, 354, 448, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
the proceedings in C.C.No.121/2016, on the file of Civil Judge
and JMFC, Athani, filed for the offences punishable under
Sections 506, 504, 143, 147, 149, 448, 323 and 354 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners Shri M.H.Patil and the learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondent no.1-State.
3. Facts in brief are as follows:
The petitioners no.1 and 2 are husband and wife and
petitioners no.3 and 4 are their children. The 2nd respondent
complainant who is the sister of the 1st petitioner, registers a
complaint on 16.9.2015 before the jurisdictional police for the
aforesaid offences. The matter was investigated and a charge
sheet was filed before the competent Court on 10.2.2016. The
Criminal Court, on filing of the charge sheet, issues summons
without taking cognizance of any of the offences indicated.
4. Perusal at the order issuing summons dated
22.4.2016, depicts that it suffers from blatant non application of
mind and contrary to the provisions of law. It is the trite law
that order taking cognizance must bear application of mind. The
order impugned does not bear any semblance of application of
mind for taking cognizance on filing of the charge sheet.
5. The law in this regard is too well settled by a
plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court as followed
in the latest judgment is in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe
vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. and others Etc.,
reported in AIR 2021 SC 4587, wherein the Apex Court has
delineated the principle of application of mind while taking
cognizance of an offence, issuing summons setting the criminal
trial in motion being a serious matter, cannot be casually done,
as is done, in the case at hand.
6. Therefore, the order issuing summons without
taking cognizance of any offence would fall foul of the provisions
of law and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court.
7. For the aforesaid reason, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) Impugned order dated 22.4.2016, passed by
the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, in
C.C.No.121/2016, stands quashed.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the Criminal
Court to reconsider the issuance of summons
bearing in mind the observations of the Court
and the law in that regard.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mrk/-
