Karnataka High Court
Sr. Anto Virgin Mary vs Sri G P Venkatachalapathi on 5 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46081
CRL.P No. 2092 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2092 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SR. ANTO VIRGIN MARY
@ MARY VINITHA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ST.ANN'S HOME,
ELANGULAM,
PARAPADY POST OFFICE,
TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU - 627 110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMAR CORREA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI G P VENKATACHALAPATHI
Digitally
signed by S/O PILLANJINAPPA,
SUMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
Location: R/O M.T.C.COLONY,
HIGH
COURT OF SHRINAGARA,
KARNATAKA GOURIBIDANUR TOWN & TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 208.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GAURIBIDANUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46081
CRL.P No. 2092 of 2017
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2014 OF ISSUING PROCESS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.725/2014 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C.,
GOURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 324 AND 342 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated
30.07.2014 by which the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC.,
Gowribidanur took cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 324, 342 of IPC in C.C. No.725/2014.
2. On the basis of information furnished by
respondent No.1 that cognizable offence was committed
by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 registered Crime
No. 21/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections
324, 342 of IPC. After conducting an investigation, the
respondent No.2 filed a 'B' report before the trial Court.
The trial Court issued notice to respondent No.1,
consequent to which, he filed a protest petition. The trial
NC: 2023:KHC:46081
Court recorded the sworn statement of respondent No.1
and the witnesses and took cognizance of offences
punishable under Sections 324 and 342 of IPC.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition is
filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that once a 'B' report is filed, it is incumbent upon the trial
Court to peruse the protest petition and consider whether
in the face of the protest petition the 'B' report deserves to
be accepted or not. It is only upon rejection of the 'B'
report, that the trial Court can conduct an enquiry into the
protest petition filed by the respondent No.1 by recording
the sworn statement of the witnesses concerned. He
submits that since this has not been complied, the order
taking cognizance and the consequent proceeding
deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader submitted that the respondent No.1 alleged that
his son suffered injuries, when the accused/petitioner
NC: 2023:KHC:46081
threw a sharp pencil at the son of the respondent No.1
when he was at school and thus he suffered injury in his
right eye and now he has lost complete vision in the right
eye and therefore, the trial Court was justified in taking
cognizance notwithstanding the 'B' report filed. The
respondent No.1 who is present in person but who has not
engaged any advocate submitted that his son suffered
injury in the right eye and he has lost vision completely in
the right eye and therefore, the petitioner/accused
deserves to be punished.
6. Heard submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused as well as the learned High Court
Government Pleader and the respondent No.1 who is
present in person.
7. The respondent No.2 while investigating Crime
No.21/2012, had recorded the statements of various
parents who had admitted their children into the school,
several staff members of the school and found that the
injury suffered by the son of the respondent No.1 was not
NC: 2023:KHC:46081
due to any act attributable to the petitioner/accused. He
also found that the school authorities had taken prompt
and immediate care to shift the son of the respondent
No.1 to the hospital. The respondent No.2 therefore filed a
'B' report claiming that the respondent No.1 had filed a
complaint only to extract money from the
petitioner/accused. When the 'B' report was placed before
the Court and when the respondent No.1 had filed a
protest petition, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to
first verify whether the investigation conducted by the
respondent No.2 was just and proper and whether the
case required further investigation. It is only upon
considering the acceptance of 'B' report that the trial Court
would enter upon the question, Whether it could take
cognizance of the offences. The procedure adopted by the
trial Court in the present case, in not considering the 'B'
report but proceeding to record the sworn statement of
the respondent No.1 and the witnesses is thoroughly
improper and incorrect. The co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Dr. Ravi Kumar v/s Mrs. K.M.C.
NC: 2023:KHC:46081
Vasantha and Another reported in ILR 2018 Kar 1725
held that the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to take
cognizance only upon rejecting the 'B' report, which is
followed in various judgments of this Court. Therefore, the
order 30.07.2014 taking cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 324, 342 of IPC registered in
C.C. No.725/2014 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC.,
Gowribidanur, taking cognizance of the offences of the
petitioner/accused deserves to be quashed.
8. In that view of the matter, this revision petition
is allowed in part and the order dated 30.07.2014 taking
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 324,
342 of IPC registered in C.C. No.725/2014 by the Prl. Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Gowribidanur, is quashed. The
case is remitted back to the trial Court which shall first
consider the 'B' report filed by the respondent No.2 in the
light of the Protest Petition filed by the respondent No.1
and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Having
regard to the fact that the incident allegedly occurred in
NC: 2023:KHC:46081
the year 2011, it is appropriate to direct the trial Court to
consider the acceptance or otherwise of the 'B' report filed
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
the certified copy of this order and then proceed in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PSJ
