Karnataka High Court

Sri Sangaraj vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 4 April, 2024

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                          -1-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890
                                                CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                 KALABURAGI BENCH
                        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
                                       BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                     CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201813 OF 2023 (482)


                BETWEEN:


                1.   SRI. SANGARAJ
                     S/O ANNARAYA DESAI
                     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                     OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

                2.   SRI. NIJAPPA
                     S/O SHETTEPPA BHAJANTRI
                     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                     OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

                3.   SRI. TULAJAPPA
Digitally
signed by            S/O TIRUKAPPA TULASIGERI
PAVITHRA N
Location:
                     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
High Court of        OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE
Karnataka

                4.   SRI. IRANAGOUDA
                     S/O BASAPPA KOMAR
                     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                     OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

                5.   SRI. GURAPPA
                     S/O NANDAPPA GANI
                     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
                     OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE
                          -2-
                               NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890
                               CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023




6.   SRI. HANAMANTH
     S/O CHANDRAPPA GIDDAPPAGOL
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

7.   SRI. SRISHAIL
     S/O SANNABASAPPA UPPALDINNI
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

8.   SRI. RAMANNA
     S/O YALLAPP MATTIHAL
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
     OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

9.   SRI. SHIVAPPA
     S/O UPPASEPPA GIDDAPPAGOL,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

10. SRI. DUNDAPPA
    S/O GURULINGAPPA UPPALDINNI,
    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
    OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

11. SRI. SIDDAPPA
    S/O DUNDAPPA BALAGOND,
    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
    OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

12. SRI. SIDDAPPA
    S/O GURAPPA GANIGAR
    AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
    OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE
                            -3-
                                 NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890
                                 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023




13. SRI. BABU
    S/O SHANKREPPA BHAJANTRI
    AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
    OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

14. SRI. CHANNAPPA
    S/O SHIVAPPA SOUDI
    AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
    OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

15. SRI. RAYAPPAGOUDA
    S/O BASAPPA KOMAR
    AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
    OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

16. SRI. SANGAPPA
    S/O SIDDAPPA GIDDAPPAGOL,
    AGE MAJOR
    OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

     ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KOLHAR TQ
     BASAVANA BAGEWADI
     DIST VIJAYPUR
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S S MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)


AND:


1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH BASAVANA BAGEWADI PS.,
     REPTD BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
     HIGH COURT BUILDING KALABURAGI

2.   SRI. SIDDESH
     S/O NINGAPPA KAROOR
                            -4-
                                 NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890
                                 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023




    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
    OCCUPATION SERVICE KBJNL,
    SRINAGAR COLONY, SOLAPUR ROAD,
    VIJAYAPURA

                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAHABUDDIN HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHARANAGOUDA
V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.439/2018
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 176 OF IPC AND SECTION 7 OF THE
RI (PM) ACT, 1988 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC, BASAVANA BAGEWADI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.


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


                         ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by

mistake petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is also made as a

party to this petition. He has already approached this

Court earlier in Crl.P.No.200513/2019 and his petition was

allowed by this Court on 18.01.2021.

2. Submission is placed on record.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890

3. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn insofar as

petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is concerned.

4. Accused Nos.2 to 16 in C.C.No.439/2018

pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Basavana Bagewadi for the offence punishable under

Section 176 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and

Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse)

Act, 1988 (for short RI(PM) Act) are before this Court with

a prayer to quash entire proceedings in the said case

against them.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

accused No.1 has already approached this Court earlier in

Crl.P.No.200513/2019 and this Court has allowed the

petition vide order dated 18.01.2021 and the entire

proceedings in C.C.No.439/2018 has been quashed

against him. He submits that in view of the bar under

Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890

Cr.P.C.) trial Court could not take cognizance for the

offence punishable under Section 176 of IPC.

7. Materials on record would go to show that FIR

was registered in Cr.No.84/2018 by Kolhar Police Station

Vijayapura District for the offence punishable under

Section 176 of IPC and Section 7 of RI (PM) Act. Police

after investigation have filed charge sheet and the trial

Court has taken cognizance of the charge sheeted

offences.

8. Accused No.1 had approached this Court in

Crl.No.200513/2019 challenging the impugned

proceedings on the ground that in view of the bar under

Section 195 of Cr.P.C. trial Court could not have taken

cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 176

of IPC. This Court in Crl.P.No.200513/2019 which was filed

by petitioner No.1 in the present proceedings in paragraph

Nos.7 and 8 has observed as follows:

"7. From reading of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. it is very clear in cases where the offence under Section 176 of IPC is

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890

included, the Court cannot take cognizance of such offence except on a complaint in writing by a public servant. In the case on hand, the complaint has been lodged by the second respondent before the police who have investigated into the matter and have now filed the charge sheet. In view of the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. the Court below had not jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 176 of IPC on the basis of a police report filed. Further, from perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court, it is very clear that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the alleged offence against the petitioner in a mechanical manner without application of his judicious mind. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mallikarjuna and Others vs. The State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2018 KAR 354 in paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 has held has follows:

"12. The Judicial Magistrates, who are empowered to summon the accused under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should always keep it in mind that summoning the accused is a serious matter and the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The summoning order must reflect that the Magistrate has applied his judicious mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The order of summoning the accused need not be a speaking order and a detailed

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890

one. But, it should not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Where reasons are not assigned, however short it may be, for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for issuance of summons, such summoning order would become bad in law. The Magistrates, while issuing process, are not required to meticulously examine and evaluate the materials on record. However, he is only required to record reasons, however short, or brief it may be, which indicate the application of mind by the Magistrate. That is all expected from him at that stage. The expression "opinion" and "sufficient ground" under Section 204 gives an indication that before issuing process, the Magistrate should show that on what material, at least, he has formed his opinion that it is a fit case to issue process. Without applying his judicious mind and without even looking to the facts of the case, mechanically, issuing process only on the basis of the operative portion of the charge-sheet or the complaint does not amount to application of mind by a Magistrate.

13. Looking to the above facts and circumstances and the legal infirmities found in the above said case, I am of the

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890

opinion that the learned Magistrate, without applying his judicious mind, has mechanically passed an order taking cognizance of the offences and the same is bad in law. All further proceedings, which has taken place in pursuance of that, is vitiated by a serious irregularity which cannot be cured. Hence, there is no other go for this Court but to quash the proceedings."

8. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the criminal proceedings which is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi in C.C.No.439/2018 as against the petitioner is liable to be quashed."

9. The reasoning assigned by this Court for

quashing the proceedings as against accused No.1 in

Crl.P.No.200513/2019 is squarely applicable to the case

on hand.

10. Under circumstances, I am of the view that the

prayer made by the petitioners herein is required to be

answered in affirmative.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890

11. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

The entire proceedings in CC No.439/2018 pending

before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana

Bagewadi for the offences punishable under Section 176 of

IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of

Misuse) Act, 1988 is quashed.