Allowed

Sri. Gopal Hallur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2014CRL.P/200701/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed an order taking cognizance against a Police Sub-Inspector under Section 349 Cr.P.C. The Court held the magistrates impugned order erroneous as the show cause notice was not actually served on the petitioner, denying him a reasonable opportunity to offer explanation before initiating criminal proceedings. The petition was allowed and the Magistrate directed to hear

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.04.2013 in C.C. No.68/2013 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to offer explanation within 15 days.

Sri. Gopal Hallur Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200701/2014

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI. GOPAL HALLUR AGED 28 YEARS, OCC :PSI R/AT : NIPPAN, TQ : CHIKKODI, DIST : BELGAUM-590001

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADV.) AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, GULBARGA-585107

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SANJAYN A. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P. FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT, TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:18.04.2013 PASSED BY THE

¶16

¶17

LEARNED JMFC SINDAGI IN C.C. NO. 171/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 68/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC, SINDAGI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed for quashing the order

¶21

dated 18.04.2013, taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 349 of Cr.P.C. and directing to register a criminal case.

¶22

The facts reveal that the petitioner is Police Sub-Inspector of Almel police station and a criminal case was registered in C.C.No.171/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of Motor Vehicle Act. The summons was reissued to CW.1 and he was ordered to produce the vehicle on 21.02.2013. The notices returned unserved. Therefore, on 21.03.2013, the learned Magistrate issued show cause notice to the

¶23

¶24

petitioner seeking his explanation for not returning the summons though the show cause notice was issued

¶25

by the learned Magistrate and it was not served on the petitioner. On 18.04.2013, the learned

¶26

Magistrate has passed the impugned order for not offering explanation to the show cause notice issued and therefore took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 349 of Cr.P.C. and registered a criminal case.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner learned Addl. SPP for the respondent.

¶28

Perusal of the provisions of Section 349 of

¶29

Cr.P.C. reveal that a reasonable opportunity has to be given to the person against whom the notice was issued and if within a reasonable time, the explanation is not offered, the Magistrate has to record the reasons and initiate action for the offence under Section 349 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

¶31

On Perusal of the order sheet dated 21.03.2013 reveals that though a show cause notice was issued, as per the extract of register maintained by the learned Magistrate regarding the service of notices. There is no mention about the show cause notice in serial No.767 having been served on the petitioner as evident from the extract produced. So, when the show cause notice was not served, the learned Magistrate, on the next date has taken cognizance without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 349 of Cr.P.C. This approach of the learned Magistrate is contrary to the aforesaid provisions and without offering reasonable opportunity, a criminal case cannot be registered for the offence under Section 349 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous. Any how, the petitioner is directed to offer his explanation before the learned Magistrate within 15 from today.

¶32

¶33

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order impugned in C.C.No.68/2013 is quashed. The

¶34

petitioner is directed to offer his explanation within 15 days from toady. The learned Magistrate is at liberty to take appropriate action.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Srt

Sri. Gopal Hallur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gopal Hallur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The United India Insurance Ltd. Vs Veeresh S/O Rudrappa Anr.

Sri. Vishnu S/O Shivaji Rathod Vs Sri. Mahadev S/O Bhimanna Hadimani Anr.

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs Somashekhar S/O Rudrappa

Shivraj S/O Nagshetty Shalikar Vs Kishor

Sri.Ibrahim Khan S/O Basith Khan Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Shri. Abdul S/O Pirasaheb Bukari and Anr. Vs Maheshwari Hospital and Ors.