The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order summonsing parties to deposit security under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The Court held that collateral criminal proceedings are maintainable during pendency of civil appeals and no notice to private respondents was needed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.11401 of 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.11401 OF 2020 (GM – RES)
BETWEEN:
SANDESH V PATKAR, S/O VITTAL K PATKAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT #64, 2ND MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.JYOTI M.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
W.P.No.11401 of 2020
2
S/O R.GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT #1/1, NEW NO.657/A/NETHAJI CIRCLE, MATTIKERE, BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
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 ORDER AT FORM NO.14 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED 07.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, ‘THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri. Gowthamdev.C.Ullal, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks time to comply with the office objections. On request, two weeks time is granted to comply with the office objections. Pending compliance of the office objections, the matter is taken up for hearing.
W.P.No.11401 of 2020
3
W.P.No.11401 of 2020
4
the property measuring 5 acres 28 guntas of land i.e. ‘B’ Schedule property situated in Sy.No.93 (old No.3) of Navratna Agrahara, Jala hobli, Devanahalli taluk. Subsequent to the said decree, the defendant/respondent No.3 herein had filed Regular Appeal in RA No.25/2003 wherein the Prl. District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, vide judgment dated 11.09.2009 has allowed the said Regular Appeal and dismissed the suit.
W.P.No.11401 of 2020
5
AIR 2019 SCC 5363 more particularly para No.23 submitted that when civil proceedings are pending, no criminal proceedings could have been initiated
W.P.No.11401 of 2020
6
and the order dated 07.09.2020 having been passed
while the civil proceedings before the Hon’ble Apex Court is pending is not maintainable and required to be quashed. She also relied upon another decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Commissioner
of Police & Ors. vs. Devender Anand & Ors. reported in AIR 2019 3807 which is passed on similar facts.
W.P.No.11401 of 2020
7
supra, the criminal proceedings had been initiated by a private complaint against the petitioner therein for an offence of cheating. Secondly, in Devender Anand’s case also, the matter was one relating to complaint registered under Section 420 of IPC by a private complaint.
W.P.No.11401 of 2020
8
Sd/JUDGE
SSD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order under Section 107 Cr.P.C. requiring security to maintain peace can be quashed given pending civil proceedings?
Whether notice needs to be issued to respondents 3 and 4 at the admission stage?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Srikanth vs. State of TelanganaDistinguished¶12
M.Srikanth vs. State of Telangana reported in AIR 2019 SCC 5363 · Who else cites this
Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Devender Anand & Ors.Distinguished¶12
Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Devender Anand & Ors. reported in AIR 2019 3807 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SANDESH V PATKAR
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
N.P.KISHORE KUMAR
G.SOMASHEKAR
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
