Allowed

J. Puttaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2020CRL.P/5000/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that a Magistrate's order signed and sealed by the CMO/CAO without independent application of mind is non-est. Consequently, the Court allowed the Criminal Petition, quashed the defective order, and remanded the matter to the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 22.02.2019 and subsequent orders are set aside; matter remanded to Magistrate to pass reasoned order.

J. Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5000 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

J. PUTTASWAMY S/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS OCC RETIRED AEE R/AT HOUSE NO.332 YADAVAGIRI, GOKULAM

¶8

MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 002 … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H. B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TARIKERE POLICE REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 228

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶15

CRL.P.No.5000/2020

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PRINCIPAL JMFC AT TARIKERE, WHICH HAS ARISEN OUT OF CR.NO.62/2012 OF 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Though there are certain office objections, at request of

¶21

Sri.Chandrashekar H.B., learned counsel for the petitioner, pending the compliance of office objections, the matter is taken up for ‘Hearing’. Three weeks time is granted to comply with the office objections.

¶22

Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1/2013 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere, arising out of Crime No.62/2012 registered by the Tarikere police station for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 468 of IPC.

¶24

¶25

A complaint came to be filed on 06.03.2012 alleging

¶26

that there is an offence committed by the petitioner by manipulating and forging his date of birth in his marks card.

¶27

On the complaint being filed, the learned Magistrate had directed for registration of case and issuance of summons returnable by 21.01.2013 which came to be challenged in this Court in Criminal Petition No.6457/2013 which was disposed on 22.02.2019 observing that the order passed is under signature of CMO which is non-est in the eye of law and as such, the matter was remitted to the learned Magistrate to reconsider the matter afresh from the stage of submission of charge sheet.

¶28

Despite the order of remand passed by this Court on

¶29

22.02.2019, the Magistrate has once again passed an order which reads thus:-

¶30

“Perused the chargesheet, cognizance taken, register the case, Issue summons to the accused, returnable by 31-08-2019.

CMO/CAO”

CRL.P.No.5000/2020

Thereafter, there is an endorsement that “Registered and Put up/Made Over this case to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere” for disposal and the signature of the said Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tarikere is found to be dated 16.08.2019.

¶35

The fact that the said seal and signature is after the case being made over to the said Court and there is no particular order passed by the Magistrate establishes that there is no application of mind by the said learned Magistrate, the order is pre-typed by the CAO/CMO. The said order cannot be stated to be made by the Magistrate as such, this order also continues to be non-est.

¶36

In view thereof, I am of the opinion that the said order requires to be set aside and matter once again remanded to the Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate orders as directed by this Court in Crl.P.No.6457/2013 dated 22.02.2019, it is for the Magistrate to apply his mind and pass a reasoned order and not barely affix his signature to the order typed under the name of CAO/CMO.

¶37

CRL.P.No.5000/2020

¶38

¶39

In view thereof, the petition is allowed .

¶40

With the above observations, matter is remitted to the Magistrate to do the needful. Registry to furnish certified copy of this order after compliance with office objections.

¶41

In view of the fact that the petitioner is stated to be aged about 70 years, taking into account the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, any application for exemption filed by the petitioner may be considered liberally by the Magistrate.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

MH/-

J. Puttaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Puttaswamy 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 Executive Engineer (Elec) Vs Sri S.R. Rangaswamy

Rev. Paul Madhukar Vs State of Karnataka

Rev. Paul Madhukar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Honnamma Vs Nijalingaiah

Vivekananda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Madhu Vs State of Karnataka