Allowed

Husain Byarri S/O. Mohammed Ali v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2021CRL.P/100793/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing an order of the Addl. JMFC dated 17.3.2018. The Court held that the lower court failed to apply judicial mind to the charge sheet and did not specify the offences for which cognizance was taken.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17.3.2018 is set-aside with a direction to the JMFC to apply judicial mind to the charge sheet and pass appropriate orders forthwith.

Husain Byarri S/O. Mohammed Ali Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

¶5

CRL.P. NO.100793 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . HUSAIN BYARRI S/O. MOHAMMED ALI AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. HANIFABAD, BHATKAL, DIST:KARWAR-581320.

¶8

2 . BUNKAR SALEEM S/O. MOHIDDIN KUNDANGOUDA AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. UMMARSTREET, MADINA COLONY, BHATKAL, DIST:KARWAR-581320.

¶9

3 . AMZAD KUNTA S/O. GHANI MEERA AGE:38 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. TARGOD, MUSANAGAR, BHATKAL, TQ:BHATKAL, IST:KARWAR-581320.

¶10

4 . ABDUL RAZAK S/O. HUSSSAIN KODI AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. HANIFABAD,MUNERRI, BHATKAL,TQ:BHATKAL, DIST:KARWAR-581320.

¶11

5 . SMT HASEENA @ RESHMA KOM HASAN AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TAGARGOD, BADRIYA COLONY,

¶12

¶13

BHATKAL, TQ:BHATKAL, DIST:KARWAR-581320.

¶14

6 . SMT BIBI HALIMA KOM KHASEEMSAB AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HANIFBAD, NELLASAR, BHATKAL, TQ:BHATKLAL, DIST:KARWAR-581320.

¶15

7 . SMT AISHA PARVEEN KOM BHASHEER GURUSAB AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HANIFBAD, NELLASAR, BHATKAL, TQ:BHATKLAL, DIST:KARWAR-581320.

¶16

8 . BASHEER GURUSAB BALEKUNDRI AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. HANIFBAD, NELLASAR, BHATKAL, TQ:BHATKLAL, DIST:KARWAR-581320.

¶17

9 . IDRISH MOHATESHAM S/O. SAHEB MOHATESH AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. HANIFBAD, NELLASAR, BHATKAL, TQ:BHATKLAL, DIST:KARWAR-581320.

¶18

10 . JAILANI KHURI @ SHARANTA JAILANI S/O. MOHAMMED MIRA AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. URBAN COLONY, BHANDAR ROAD, BHATKAL, TQ:BHATKLAL, DIST:KARWAR-581320.

¶19

...PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. S V YAJI, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND

¶22

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶23

¶24

REP. BY THE PSI BHATKAL TOWN PS, BHATKAL, BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, DHARWAD-580011.

¶25

2 . SMT JAMEERA ATTA SHAIKH AGE:52 YERS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TAGARGOD, BHATKAL, TQ:BHATKAL, DIST:KARWAR-581320.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1) (SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶28

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITON AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY BHATKAL TOWN POLICE IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.7, 8 AND 12 TO 19 IN CRIME NO.33/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 448, 354, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC WHICH IS REGISTERED AS CC NO.898/2014 BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN.) AND ADDL. JMFC, BHATKLA. CONSEQUUENTLY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN ISSUE OF NOTICE/SUMMONS IN THE ABSENCE OF TAKING THE COGNIZANCE IN CC NO.898/2014 DATED 17.3.2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 448, 354, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NOS.7, 8 AND 12 TO 19 MAY KINDLY BE SET-ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. calling in question the order dated. 17.3.2018 passed in CC No.898/2014 on the file of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Addl. JMFC, Bhatkal taking cognizance in the matter.

¶33

It is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case in a great detail in view of the nature of the order which is called in question before me.

¶34

The order dated 17.3.2018 impugned herein

¶35

reads as follows:

¶36

“Re-investigation charge sheet submit for CPI Honnavar through PSI BTPS. Hence, case is taken on board and to for orders.

¶37

Issue summons to accused Nos.1 to 19 by 11.05.2018.”

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶39

this Court had passed the order dated 25.1.2017 in Crl.P. Nos.101020/2016 c/w Crl.P. No.101040/2016, directing the investigating officer to hold further investigation into

¶40

¶41

the complaint against the accused in Crime No.32/2014.

¶42

He submits that pursuant to the said direction, the investigating officer had held further investigation and filed additional charge sheet. His grievance is that the order of the learned JMFC dated 17.3.2018 does not disclose his application of judicial mind to the additional charge sheet and it does not indicate for what offences, cognizance has been taken.

¶43

I have also heard the learned HCGP on this

¶44

question.

¶45

A perusal of the order passed by the learned JMFC dated 17.3.2018 shows very clearly that there is total non-application of his judicial mind to the charge sheet and additional charge sheet filed and there is not even reference to any sections under which charge sheet and additional charge sheet has been filed and also there is absolutely no reference in the cryptic order passed by him as to for what offences, he was taking cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 19. He has only passed the order issuing summons to accused Nos.1 to 19. In that

¶46

¶47

view of the matter, the order passed by the learned JMFC is wholly illegal and therefore, it is liable to be set-aside. Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

a) The above petition is allowed.

¶50

b) The impugned order dated 17.3.2018 passed in CC No.898/2014 by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Addl. JMFC, Bhatkal, is set-aside with a direction to the learned JMFC to apply his judicial mind to the charge sheet and additional charge sheet filed and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on the same regarding taking cognizance for the offences in accordance with law forthwith.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

JTR

Husain Byarri S/O. Mohammed Ali v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Husain Byarri S/O. Mohammed Ali 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

Somashekhar v. Bandi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddartha Chowdhary Vs Sub-Inspector of Police

Sukhpal Singh S/O Than Singh Vs Sub-Inspector of Police

Shri. Ravishnkar S/O Hirojappa Kalal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sarojini W/O. Gireppa Jakkannavar Vs Channayya S/O. Mallayya Hireamth

Varanasi Phani Kishore Vs Mahesh S/O Pandit Lakshani