Bench disposed of a Cr.P.C. 482 petition seeking quashment of a private complaint without examining merits, relying on Urmila Devi vs. Yudhvir Singh to hold the impugned order was revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
Petition dismissed; liberty to file revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.; I.A.1/2018 dismissed.
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 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT CRL.P. NO.101095 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1 . S.S.V. DEVELOPERS SUVIDA ANNEX, CONVENT SCHOOL OPPOSITE, KESHAVAPUR, REPT. BY ITS M.D. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. KRISHNANATHASA KABADI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS H.NO.105, OLD BADAMINAGAR KESHAVAPUR, HUBBALLI-580029, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
2 . VIJAYKUMAR S/O KRISHNANATHSA KABADI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR, PARTNER. (MANAGING DIRECTOR) SSV DEVELOPERS, H.NO.105, OLD BADAMI NAGAR, KESHAVAPUR, HUBBALLI-580029, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 3 . SMT.SMITHA W/O RAMESH CHAVAN
2
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR, SSV DEVELOPERS, EUREKHA COLONY, H.NO.7, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHAVAPUR, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 4 . SHIVAPRAKASH S/O SHANKRAPPA ROTTI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PARTNER, R/O: R.K. MYANAR APARTMENT, PLOT NO.67 and 68, 2ND STAGE, PLOT NO.8, 3RD FLOOR, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(By SRI. H R GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SUNDAR PREMRAJ JOTWANI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, J and J INFRA, R/O: UREKHA CORNER, 2ND FLOOR, KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBBALLI-580029, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.
… RESPONDENTS
3
(By SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R.2.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 21.05.2014, FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT / RESPONDENT NO.1 ON THE FILE OF THE I JMFC COURT AT HUBBALLI AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JMFC I COURT AT HUBBALLI, REGISTERING C.C.NO.3501/2016 UNDER PC.NO.187/2016, FILED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 407, 418 & 420 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A & B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. calling in question the validity of taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 407, 418 and 420 of IPC in C.C.No.3501/2016 on the file of the JMFC, I Court at Hubballi, on a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by respondent No.1.
4
Yudhvir Singh and accordingly, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of this case at this stage .
liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., in which event, the learned Sessions shall go into the merits of the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open.
Sd/JUDGE
Mgn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summons and cognizance should be disposed of without going into merits.
Whether theIssue: Whether the impugned order is revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Urmila Devi vs. Yudhvir SinghRelied on¶21
(2013) 15 SCC 624 – Urmila Devi vs. Yudhvir Singh · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
S.S.V. DEVELOPERS SUVIDA ANNEX AND ANS.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SUNDAR PREMRAJ JOTWANI
P. KRISHNA BHAT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
