Karnataka High Court
Jangayya Goud Churuk vs State And Anr on 13 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1012
CRL.P No. 201681 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201681 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
JANGAYYA GOUD CHURUK
S/O NARSIMHA GOUDA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 12-1-79 VIJAYA GARDENS,
BANDLAGUDA RANGAREDDI,
ANDHRA PRADESH-500068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ M. POLICE PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SHIVAKUMAR 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIREMATH THROUGH BRAHMPUR P S, KALABURAGI,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED THROUGH ADDL. SPP,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
2. MR. ZAHEEN AHMED S/O MR MD. FAHEEM AHMED,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.5-93/30/48/C, MEECA COLONY,
NEAR RAZA-E-MUSTAFA MASJID,
GULBARAGA-585104.
...RSPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1012
CRL.P No. 201681 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528
OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER ON THE ORDERS
PASSED BY IV ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI
DATED 10-04-2024 IN PCR NO.80/2024 AND CC NO.4117/2024
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 420 R/W U/S 34 OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC COURT, AT KALABURAGI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
Accused No.2 is before this Court under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. with a prayer quash the order dated 10.04.2024
passed in C.C.No.4117/2024, pending before the Court of
IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out
of PCR No.80/2024, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Trial Court has taken cognizance of the alleged
offences without recording the sworn statement of the de-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1012
facto complainant and in lieu of sworn statement, the
affidavit of the de-facto complainant has been received,
which is not permissible under law. Therefore, the
impugned proceedings gets vitiated.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/de-facto complainant does not seriously oppose the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The question that arises for consideration in this
petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
K.Venkateramaiah and Others vs. Katterao S.
Deshpande1. In the said judgment in paragraph Nos.9
and 10, it is observed as follows:
"9. By reading of Section 200 of Cr. P.C. it
is clear that the Magistrate who takes cognizance
of an offence is required to examine the
complainant and the witnesses on oath and
thereafter he has to reduce the substance of the
2008 CRI. L. J. 1547
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1012
same in writing and is to be signed by the
complainant and the witnesses before the
Magistrate, whereas, the affidavit is a oath taken
before the officer of the Court or before the
Magistrate or the officer, affidavit does not
require the recording of sworn statement by the
Magistrate. The affidavit by itself is a declaration
on oath by the complainant.
10. When a specific procedure is
contemplated under Section 200 of Cr. P.C. it
cannot be deviated by adopting some other
procedure which is not prescribed, even though
it may be convenient to the complainant. The
purpose of recording the substance of sworn
statement by the Magistrate is to enable the
Magistrate to satisfy him-self of the allegation in
the complaint to proceed further in the matter.
Under Section 200 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate
himself examines the complainant and the
witnesses and records the substance of the
same. The Magistrate is under obligation to
reduce the substance of the statement in writing
which is to be signed by the complainant and the
witnesses. If an affidavit is accepted, it would go
contrary to the provisions of Section 200 of Cr.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1012
P.C. In my opinion, Section 200 of Cr. P.C. does
not contemplate acceptance of affidavit in the
form of sworn statement nor affidavit partakes
the character of sworn statement as required
under Section 200 Cr. P.C. Sworn statement
does not require any cross-examination nor
requires a recording of the statement at the
instance of an advocate. It is not an
examination-in-chief, but it is the statement
made before the Magistrate for his satisfaction.
The filing of an affidavit by the complainant in
support of his complaint would be contrary to the
procedure under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and it is
inadmissible."
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated
10.04.2024 impugned in this criminal petition cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER
The criminal petition is partly allowed.
The order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Court of
IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi in
C.C.No.4117/2024, arising out of PCR No.80/2024,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1012
registered for the offences punishable under Section 420
read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed and the matter is
remitted to the Trial Court to proceed further in the matter
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
