Karnataka High Court
Sri B G Venkata Reddy vs Sri Manikanta on 12 January, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1249 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI B G VENKATA REDDY
S/O LATE MR.GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
BUDAGAVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
SADALI HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105.
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMMITH. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MANIKANTA
S/O VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED 25 YEARS,
JEEP DRIVER, RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
SIDLAGHATTA, R/AT LAKKAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA (T) - 562 102.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DIBBURAHALLI POLICE
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 212
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU. ....RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL
-2-
JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA IN P.C.R.NO.87/2017 DATED
28.12.2020 AND DIRECT THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT TO PERUSE
THE DOCUMENTS AND ORDER FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY BY THE
DY. S.P.,CHINTAMANI AND ETC.
THIS CRL.R.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the complainant being
aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting his
complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 03.08.2017, the
petitioner's son namely Sri.B.V.Anil, while riding the motor
cycle along with his friend one Bharath Kumar, met with an
accident when a Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-40-407
dashed against the said motor cycle. The pillion rider
Sri.Bharath Kumar was killed on the spot and the petitioner's
son Anil suffered grievous injuries. In connection with this
accident, the son-in-law of the petitioner namely Devaraju
went to the Dibburahalli police station on 04.08.2017 for
registering FIR but the police did not receive the complaint at
all. For this reason, the petitioner approached the court of
Magistrate, Sidlaghatta with a complaint under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C. and sought reference to the police for investigation
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate
rejected the complaint assigning the reasons that the
petitioner had not produced any documents to show that
before filing the complaint, he had approached the police. The
learned Magistrate was of the opinion that there was no
compliance of Section 154(1) and Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C.
3. If it is clear case of the petitioner that before
approaching the court of Magistrate, his son-in-law went to the
police station for the purpose of lodging FIR in connection with
the accident said to have been taken place on 13.08.2017, it
was necessary for the petitioner to have produced the
documents to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mrs.Priyanka Srivatsava and Another vs. State of
U.P. and others - AIR 2015 SC 1758, has clearly held that
whenever reference to police is sought under Section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C., the complainant must clearly state in the complaint
itself that he had approached the police and then the
Superintendent of Police for taking action and their failure
resulted in a private complaint being filed. It is also obligatory
for the complainant to produce the documents to that effect.
The complainant should also file an affidavit showing due
compliance of these requirements of law.
4. This being the position of law, the learned Magistrate
is justified in rejecting the complaint. Therefore, I do not find
any infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is therefore
dismissed as devoid of merits.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh
complaint producing necessary documents and filing affidavit
to that effect in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava's case (supra).
SD/-
JUDGE
Srl.
