Allowed

Sri Vaseem Ahmmed v. the State by

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2020WP/10793/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition under Articles 226/226 of Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated through a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. held invalid because the complainant failed to first approach the jurisdictional police before filing the private complaint, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case. The tr

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in PCR No. 26/2019 and all further proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Sri Vaseem Ahmmed Vs the State by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.No.10793 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.10793 OF 2020 (GM – RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI VASEEM AHMED, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED LUTHAFULLA, RESIDING AT NO.780, 6^TH CROSS, K.R.PURAM EXTENSION, HASSAN – 573 201, KARNATAKA.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. VAISHNAVI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARISH R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE BY SUB – INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EXTENSION POLICE STATION, HASSAN, KARNATAKA. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

SRI MUNEER AHAMMED, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE ABDUL SHAKUR, RESIDING AT 6^TH CROSS,

¶15

W.P.No.10793 of 2020

¶16

¶17

K R PURAM EXTENSION, HASSAN – 573 201, KARNATAKA.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR STATE; SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET ANNEXURE – D AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 3182/2019 ANNEXURE – A PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN BENGALURU, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for

¶24

quashing of the proceedings and the charge-sheet filed in C.C. No.3182/2019 pending on the file of the 4^th Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hassan.

¶25

The 2^nd respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging offences under

¶26

W.P.No.10793 of 2020

¶27

¶28

Sections 506, 419 and 420 of the IPC as against the petitioner herein.

¶29

Smt. Vaishnavi learned counsel appearing for Sri Harish R., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said complaint does not comply with the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors reported in (2015)6 SCC 287 , in that the said PCR has been filed prior to the filing of the complaint before the jurisdictional police, further more there is no affidavit enclosed with the said private complaint. Therefore, the proceedings ought to be quashed.

¶30

Sri Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the matter may be remitted back to the trial Court to be considered from the stage of filing of the complaint. Since respondent No.2 has several grievances against the

¶31

W.P.No.10793 of 2020

¶32

¶33

petitioner which need to be protected. The mere non-following of the technicality should not disentitle the respondent No.2 from continuing the prosecution against the petitioner.

¶34

Heard Smt. Vaishnavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girish Baladhare, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶35

A perusal of the complaint in PCR No.26/2019 indicates that respondent No.2 had not approached the jurisdictional police before filing of the PCR as held by the Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava ’s case. Before filing of the private complaint, the complainant is required to have approach the jurisdictional police with a request to lodge a complaint. If the said complaint was not entertained by the jurisdictional police, then the complainant is required to approach the

¶36

Superintendent of Police to take necessary action.

¶37

W.P.No.10793 of 2020

¶38

¶39

It is only thereafter a private complaint can be filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., making necessary averments as regards the above procedures followed as also enclosing an affidavit adverting to the same. This being in order to protect any person from being unnecessarily prosecuted by filing a private complaint.

¶40

The above procedure not having been followed by respondent No.2, I am of the considered opinion that there would be no purpose served by remitting the matter to the trial Court to proceed from the stage of filing of the private complaint. The present petition is therefore required to be allowed and the proceedings in PCR No. 26/2019 and all further proceedings arising there from are required to be quashed. However, liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to approach the jurisdictional police with the respondent No.2’s grievance for lodging of a complaint if so advised and thereafter

¶41

W.P.No.10793 of 2020

¶42

¶43

follow the requirements of law laid down by the

¶44

Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava ’s case, as stated supra.

¶45