A Criminal PETITION under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order taking cognizance after a final report was filed. The trial court was found to have mechanically taken cognizance.
Impugned order dated 16.05.2015 taking cognizance is quashed and trial court directed to apply mind to final report afresh.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
CRL.P. NO.100803 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. VANITA D/O. VEERABHADRAPPA HITTALAMANI @ VANITA HAZARATALI GUTTAL, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:ADVOCATE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOTEBENNUR, TQ:BYADAGI, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. HAZARATALI GUTTAL, MRUTHYUNJAYANAGAR, BEHIND DIXIT GAS GODOWN, RANEBENNUR, DIST:HAVERI.
.. PETITIONER
(By Sri.A M GUNDAWADE, ADV. FOR SRI. M B GUNDAWADE, ADV. ) AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
2
AT DHARWAD, THROUGH RANEBENNUR POLICE STATION.
2 . KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK REPRESENTED BY KRISHNA BHAT S/O. SUBBARAO BHAT, MANAGER,HANAGODI MATH COMPLEX, P B ROAD BRANCH, RANEBENNUR, DIST:HAVERI.
… RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R.1.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.519/2015, ARISING OUT OF P.C.NO.37/2014, ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND IIADDL. JMFC COURT, RANEBENNUR, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.406, 418, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by accused No.1, the prayer sought for is to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.519/2015 arising out of P.C.No.37/2014 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and II Additional JMFC, Ranebennur, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 read with 34 of IPC.
3
“16-5-2015.
The P.S.I., Town P.S. Ranebennur has submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s. 406, 418, 420 r/w. 34 IPC.
Papers are verified as per list found to be correct.
F.I.R. and complaint and P.F. are enclosed.
Accused 1 and 2 are on bail by I.O. (This portion struck off by pen)
Hence, submitted for orders.
O R D E R
4
Perused the charge sheet and papers. There are sufficient grounds to proceed the case against the accused for the above said offences.
Hence, cognizance taken U/s. 190(1) of Cr.P.C. Register the case in Reg.No.III and Call on 27-52015.
(The underline portions are in handwriting)
herein presented the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Court below in PCR No.37/2014 on 25.02.2014.
The learned Court below after receiving the private complaint, in exercise of its power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. referred the complaint to the jurisdictional Police for investigation and report. On such investigation, the I.O. filed a charge sheet against the present petitioner and accused No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC. When the said
5
final report was placed before the learned Court below, it passed the order on 16.05.2015 as extracted herein above.
O R D E R
The above petition is allowed.
The order dated 16.05.2015 passed in C.C.No.519/2015 arising out of P.C.No.37/2014 on the file of the learned Additional
6
Civil Judge and II Additional JMFC, Ranebennur, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 read with 34 of IPC is quashed.
The learned trial Court is directed to apply its mind to the final report produced before it afresh and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.
In view of allowing the above petition, I.A.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and accordingly it is disposed.
Sd/JUDGE
Mgn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order took cognizance without applying judicial mind to the chargesheet ahead of summons against the accused.
Whether the lower court should be directed to reconsider the chargesheet before proceeding further.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. VANITA D/O. VEERABHADRAPPA HITTALAMANI
STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK
P. KRISHNA BHAT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
