Karnataka High Court
M. Shankaragouda vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1311
CRL.P No. 200902 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200902 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M. SHANKARAGOUDA
S/O BASAVARAJAPPAGOUDA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARVI VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI,
NOW SIRWAR-584101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH, POLICE MANVI POLICE STATION,
DIST. RAICHUR,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
by SHIVAKUMAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIREMATH KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. HIREGOUDA S/O SUGANAGOUDA,
KARNATAKA AGED 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO. 15-1-1/A-15,
SHRINAGAR COLONY, (NEW LAYOUT),
NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE,
R.G. CAMP ROAD MANVI,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL,HCGP FOR R1
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2023 IN P.C.NO. 41/2021 PASSED
BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1311
CRL.P No. 200902 of 2024
QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
C.C.NO.86/2023 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417,
418, 419, 420, 468, 469 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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)
1. Petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC
with a prayer to set aside the order dated 22.02.2023 passed in
C.C.No.86/2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge &
JMFC, Manvi, arising out of Crime P.C.No.41/2021 which is
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418,
419, 420, 468, 469 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
herein has filed a private complaint against the respondent for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act'). Thereafter, a
private complaint was filed by the respondent against the
petitioner herein in P.C.No.41/2021 and the said private
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1311
complaint was referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC
and inturn, Manvi police had registered FIR in Crime
No.71/2021. In the said case, after investigation, 'B' final
report was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The
learned Magistrate by order dated 06.01.2022 having rejected
the 'B' final report had taken cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 406 IPC, and thereafter, has recorded
the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses and
once again has passed the impugned order which is not
permissible in law. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP and the learned Counsel for
respondent no.2 have opposed the petition. They submit that
though initially the Trial Court has erred in taking cognizance of
the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, the subsequent
procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is correct, and
therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order.
Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
5. The material on record would go to show that the
petitioner herein had initiated proceedings against the
respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1311
of the N.I.Act and it appears that thereafter a private complaint
in P.C.No.41/2021 was filed by the respondent before the
jurisdictional Court of Magistrate against the petitioner which
was referred to the jurisdictional police by the learned
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. The police after
investigation, have filed 'B' final report before the learned
Magistrate and acceptance of the 'B' final report was opposed
by respondent no.2. The learned Magistrate after hearing
respondent no.2, by order dated 06.01.2022 had rejected the
'B' final report filed by the Police Inspector of Manvi, and had
proceeded to take cognizance for the offence punishable under
Section 406 IPC. Inspite of the learned Magistrate passing a
detailed order rejecting 'B' final report and taking cognizance of
the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, thereafter, the
learned Magistrate has posted the matter for recording the
sworn statement of the complainant and based on the sworn
statement recorded, vide the impugned order dated
22.02.2023, has directed the Registry to register a case for the
offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419, 420, 468,
469 of IPC, and issued summons to the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1311
6. The procedure followed by the learned Magistrate after
filing of 'B' final report is not in accordance with law and the
guidelines laid down by the coordinate bench of this Court in
the case of DR. RAVIKUMAR VS MRS. K.M.C.VASANTHA - ILR
2018 KAR 1925, has not been properly followed by the learned
Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after filing 'B' final report by
the police, ought to have heard the complainant regarding
acceptance of the 'B' final report, and thereafter, ought to have
either rejected the 'B' final report or accepted the same. In the
event of rejection of 'B' final report, the learned Magistrate
could have further proceeded to record the sworn statement of
the complainant and his witnesses, and thereafter should have
proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offences.
7. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate after hearing
the complainant, having rejected the 'B' final report, on the
very same day, has also taken cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 406 IPC which was not permissible.
After taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section
406 IPC, it was not open for the learned Magistrate to post the
case for recording the sworn statement of the complainant.
Therefore, the entire procedure followed by the learned
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1311
Magistrate after filing 'B' final report by the police is erroneous
and the law laid down by this Court in Dr. Ravikumar's case
supra, has not been properly followed by the learned
Magistrate, and therefore, the impugned criminal proceedings
from the stage after filing of 'B' final report by the police in
Crime No.71/2021 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the
following order:
8. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
22.02.2023 and the order dated 06.01.2022 passed passed in
P.C.No.41/2021 by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Manvi, are
quashed. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to proceed
further in the matter taking into consideration the observations
made herein above and the judgment of this Court in Dr.
Ravikumar's case supra, from the stage of filing of 'B' final
report by the police and proceed further in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
