Partly allowed

Smt Veena S Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2020WP/10981/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order by a Magistrate that called for a sworn statement before deciding on the police B-report. The Court directed the Magistrate to first accept or reject the B-report based on the complainant's protest memo before proceeding to record the sworn statement.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27.12.2019 setting aside recoded; direction to Magistrate to consider B-report and objection memo before passing orders.

Smt Veena S Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10981 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Smt. Veena S Hegde, W/o Sharath Hegde, Aged about 45 years, R/at Kuntadi Anganavadi Centre, Kalya Village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi – 574 244.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri.Suyog Herele E., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka, Through Karkala P.S., Represented by its S.P.P., High Court of Karnataka Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶12

Smt.Poornima, W/o Raghunath, Aged about 29 years, R/at Bandasale Kuntadi, Kalya Village, Karkala, Udupi – 574 244.

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

(By Sri.Vinayaka V.S., HCGP for R1;

¶15

Notice to R2 dispensed with vide order dated 06.10.2020)

¶16

WP.No.10981/2020

¶17

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Karkala in R.C.S.No.69/2018 including the FIR and complaint in Crime No.13/2017 registered by the Karkala PS for the alleged offences punishable under Section 406, 408, 420, 471, 468 and 465 of IPC (Annexure – A, B and C)

¶19

This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.2.

¶22

At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with at the risk of the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to

¶24

quash the entire proceedings on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, in R.C.S.No.69/2018 including the FIR and complaint in Crime No.13/2017

¶25

WP.No.10981/2020

¶26

¶27

registered by the Karkala Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406,408,420,471 and 465 of IPC.

¶28

The complaint is filed by respondent No.2 making certain allegations as regards the petitioner having misappropriated money when she was working as Anganawadi worker. he Anganwadi has 4 groups and each group had contributed certain amount in money. The petitioner being the part of one group was collecting all the money, by doing so, she misused the money belonging to Anganwadi.

¶29

On filing of the said complaint, FIR in Crime No.13/2017 was registered and matter referred for investigation, the jurisdictional police had filed B-report. On 23.11.2018 notice was issued to the complainant. On service, the complainant filed his objection to B- report.

¶30

WP.No.10981/2020

¶31

¶32

On 21.03.2019 noting the absence of the complainant on several occasions, on request the matter came to be adjourned and finally heard on 31.08.2019 and posted for orders on 19.09.2019. On 27.11.2019,

¶33

the learned Magistrate has passed the order as under:

¶34

“I have perused the ‘B’ report filed by the PSI of Karkala Rural Police Station. Before, passing any order on ‘B’report, it is just and necessary to record sworn statement of the complainant. Call on 4/3.”

¶35

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is

¶36

before this Court contending that the learned Magistrate ought to have passed orders either to accept or reject the B-report after taking cognizance of the offences and then to record the sworn statement of the complainant. In this regard, he has relied on decision of this Court in the case of Dr.Ravikumar vs. Mrs.K.M.C Vasantha

¶37

and another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725 more particularly para No.5 thereof.

¶38

WP.No.10981/2020

¶39

¶40

Relying on the same, Sri. Suyog Herele.E., would submit that the learned Magistrate has not followed procedure as laid down under Sections 200 to 204 of Cr.P.C. which has been affirmed and reiterated in the above said decision. It is submitted that the entire proceedings have to be quashed.

¶41

Learned HCGP would submit that the learned Magistrate by way of impugned order has called for recording sworn statement, no cognizance was taken and summons was issued to the petitioner-accused. Hence, the petitioner-accused would not have a locus to challenge the said order. It is only once the order has been passed either taking cognizance or issuance of summons, there would be a role to be played by the petitioner. At present, there is no role to be played by the petitioner and there being no cause of action and the petition requires to be dismissed.

¶42

WP.No.10981/2020

¶43

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶45

the learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶46

It is an undisputed fact that the B-report has been filed and also protest memo has been filed by the complainant. It is further an undisputed fact that the learned counsel for the complainant was heard in the matter. Once these stages have been crossed, it is for the learned Magistrate to either accept or reject the B- report and only thereafter the next stage of recording sworn statement would come into picture. The protest memo/objections if it is were to satisfy the Court, then the investigation carried out, is not proper and investigation overlooks certain aspects by virtue of which the offences could be stated to have been made out only then recording the sworn statement, taking of cognizance and summons to be issued arises.

¶47

In view of the above observation, the order dated

¶48

27.12.2019 is required to be set aside and therefore set

¶49

WP.No.10981/2020

¶50

¶51

aside with a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider B-report and the objection/protest memo filed by the complainant in accordance with law and pass necessary orders either accepting or rejecting the said B-report and proceed thereafter. Hence, I pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed .

¶54

Sri. Suyog Herale.E., submits that he would comply with the office objection with regard to court fee during the course of day. Until the compliance of office objection, this order copy should not be released.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

SSD

Smt Veena S Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Veena S Hegde 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

Cases cited

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

Sayyed Meera Saheb Vs the State of Karnataka

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

Sri.Sriram Vs State of Karnataka