Dismissed

Sayyed Meera Saheb v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2020CRL.P/2131/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench dismissed a criminal petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application. The court held the petition is not maintainable as allegations involved serious offences like intimidation and confinement, not injuries. Observations on delay and payment were noted as defense matters for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioners to stand for trial.

Sayyed Meera Saheb Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.P. No.2131 OF 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2131 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SAYYED MEERA SAHEB S/O SYYED ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT ADDAGADDE HOUSE KADABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK D.K-574201

¶10

SYYED KHALEEL S/O SAYYED MEERA SAHEB AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT ADDAGADDE HOUSE KADABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK D.K-574201 ... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD. Y.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADABA P.S. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶14

YADUKUMAR K.S. S/O K.SHEENA AGED 30 YEARS R/AT SADHANA NILAYA NANDIBEETU, VADERA HOBLI

¶15

KUNDAPURA UDUPI-576101 ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA.V.S, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED)

¶17

CRL.P. No.2131 OF 2019

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN C.C.NO.1588/2014 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.14/2014) ON 16.08.2017 BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PUTTUR CONFIRMED BY THE REV. COURT IN CRL.RP NO.5108/2017 DATED 30.10.2017 BY THE 5^TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 353, 342, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PUTTUR.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are before this Court seeking to set aside the order dated 16.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.1588/2014 (arising out of Crime No.14/2014) by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Puttur, D.K. and confirmed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru sitting at Puttur, D.K. on an application filed by the petitioners for their discharge in the said proceedings.

¶24

A complaint came to be registered by the 2^nd respondent on 30.01.2014 alleging that on

¶25

CRL.P. No.2131 OF 2019

¶26

¶27

21.01.2014 at about 8.30 a.m., the first informant

¶28

along with his colleagues who were working with State Bank of India, Uppinangady Branch had visited the house of the petitioners seeking for repayment of the loan obtained by 1^st petitioner and during that time, the petitioners have abused the complainant and his colleagues by using filthy language, assaulted and wrongfully confined them thereby coming in the way of and deterred them from discharging their official duties. It is further alleged that the petitioners have threatened the complainant and his colleagues with dire consequences in the event of they persisting with their claim for recovery of the loan amount using revolver.

¶29

It is in this background that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.252/2014 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which came to be rejected by this Court holding the

¶30

CRL.P. No.2131 OF 2019

¶31

¶32

same to be premature. Thereafter, the petitioners had approached the Magistrate by filing an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for their discharge. Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Puttur, D.K., by order dated 16.08.2017 dismissed the same holding that there are no grounds made out by the petitioners for their discharge and further held that at this stage, mini trial cannot held. Assailing the same, petitioners had approached 5^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore sitting at Puttur, D.K., which revision petition also came to be dismissed on 30.10.2017 holding that the averments made in the said revision petition are in the nature of defence and the same could be placed on record during the course of trial. It is aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

¶33

Sri.Y.S.Shiva Prasad, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that there is no offence

¶34

CRL.P. No.2131 OF 2019

¶35

¶36

made out against the petitioners inasmuch as the alleged offences are stated to have been committed on 21.01.2014 at 8.30 a.m., whereas a complaint was filed on 31.01.2014 after a gap of nearly 10 days. Therefore, he submits that the same is the strategy set up by the officers of SBI. It is an after thought which alone would be sufficient to discharge the petitioners. He further submits that the loan amount borrowed with the SBI has been discharged by the petitioners in the year 2018 and the SBI has issued No Due Certificate on 26.03.2018. Therefore, the amounts having been paid, the criminal proceedings ought not to be continued against the petitioners.

¶37

Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the offences as alleged against the petitioners are very serious in nature. The allegations made and the investigation and the charge sheet laid would indicate the involvement of the petitioners in the

¶38

CRL.P. No.2131 OF 2019

¶39

¶40

crime as alleged. Therefore, it is required that the petitioners stand for trial and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the papers.

¶42

The first ground urged by Sri.Shiva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a delay in filing the complaint. Secondly, there is no wound certificate produced and thirdly the payments have been made in the year 2018 itself. Therefore, the proceedings could not be continued.

¶43

As regards first ground that there is a delay in filing the complaint, I am of the considered opinion that the said delay has been adequately explained by stating that respondent No.2-complainant being an official of SBI had to obtain various permissions from his superiors before filing of the complaint and

¶44

CRL.P. No.2131 OF 2019

¶45

¶46

hence, there was a delay. I am of the considered opinion that the said explanation would suffice.

¶47

As regards second contention of Sri.Shiva Prasad that there is no wound certificate which has been produced. The allegations made against the petitioners are only insofar as offences under Sections 353, 342, 504, 506. There are no allegations which are as regards 323 or the like. The allegations are only confinement of public officers, deterring them from discharging their duties, criminal intimidation by using revolver etc. For the offences as alleged there is no requirement of wound certificate to be produced.

¶48

As regards third contention of Sri.Shiva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner that payments have been made in the year 2018 and No Due Certificate has been issued by the SBI. Therefore, the proceedings ought not to have been continued would be completely a wrong assumption in that

¶49

CRL.P. No.2131 OF 2019

¶50

¶51

the allegation made are as regards criminal offences which have been alleged against the petitioners in preventing the respondent No.2 and the other colleagues from discharging their official duties. The payment made subsequently in the year 2018 would only go to show that in the year 2014 there were amounts due by the petitioners to the bank and it is in this background they prevented respondent No.2 and his colleagues from discharging their official duties.

¶52

In the above background, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition challenging the order of dismissal of discharge application is not maintainable and is required to be dismissed on account of no grounds made out.

¶53

The petitioners are required to stand for trial and any of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners being in the nature of defence they are free to place the same before the trial court.

¶54

CRL.P. No.2131 OF 2019

¶55

¶56

In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. The observations made herein are only for consideration of the present petition. The trial court shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Prs*

Sayyed Meera Saheb v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Meera Saheb 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

Sri H.M. Srinath Vs Sri. Muninagappa

B Gokuldas Pai Vs Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd.

Gangadhar B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Emmanuel Jude Charles Vs the State of Karnataka by Hsr Layout P.S

Smt Veena S Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Sriram Vs State of Karnataka