Allowed

Sri B T Manjappa @ B T Manjappa Gowda v. State by Thirthahalli Police

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2021CRL.P/1160/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The court held that the private complainant failed to approach the police and the Magistrate mechanically referred the complaint for investigation without applying his mind, constituting an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 739/2017, PCR No. 166/2017 and Crime No. 356/2017 were quashed.

Sri B T Manjappa @ B T Manjappa Gowda Vs State by… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1160 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Sri B.T.Manjappa @ B.T.Manjappa Gowda, S/o Late Thimmappagowda, Aged about 67 years, Agriculturist, R/a Bubbisiri, Doorvasapuram Post, Mulbagilu Village, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shivamogga District – 577 432.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri. Rajendra K.R., Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

State by Thirthahalli Police, Thirthahalli, Shivamogga Dist., Rep. by SPP, Office of the

¶11

Advocate General, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶12

Sri G.V.Sudarshan, S/o G.Vamadevaiah, Advocate, Gandhi Chowk, Thirthahalli, Shivamogga Dist.577 432.

¶13

…Respondents

¶14

(By Sri. Showri, HCGP, for R1; Sri B.S.Prasad, Adv., for R2)

¶15

¶16

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 739/2017 (PCR No. 166/2017 and Cr. No.356/2017) on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Thirthahalli. This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C

¶19

praying this court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 739/2017 (PCR No. 166/2017) and Crime No. 356/2017 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Thirthahalli and pass such other orders.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant/respondent No.2 has filed a private complaint which is numbered as PCR No. 166/2017 making the allegation that this petitioner suddenly entered the Bar Association and threatened the petitioner in the complaint who is a Practicing Advocate. Based on the complaint, the learned Magistrate referred the matter under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet.

¶21

¶22

The main contention of the petitioner before this

¶23

court is that this petitioner is a litigant before the trial court and the private complaint is filed without compliance of sections 156(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C and the learned Magistrate has also not noticed the same and instead referred the matter under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C without applying his judicious mind. The very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner is bad in law. Counsel also would vehemently contend that the learned Magistrate after filing of the final report also took the cognizance and proceeded against the petitioner herein and hence it requires interference of this court. Counsel also vehemently contended that the incident had taken place on 8.8.2017 and private complaint was filed on 9.8.2017 on the very next day without following the procedure. On that ground also proceedings have to be quashed.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent/complainant would vehemently contend that the incident had taken place within the Bar Association

¶25

¶26

premises and hence the second respondent has not approached the police and instead filed the complaint on the very next day. Counsel would also contend that cognizance was also taken and that the accused/petitioner was secured before the trial court and the evidence is also commenced.

¶27

In reply to the arguments of the second respondent’s counsel, the petitioner’s counsel submits that the evidence is not yet commenced.

¶28

Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also on perusal of records and particularly para 4 of the complaint where the incident has been narrated, it is clear that nowhere in the complaint it is stated that with regard to the said incident the complainant has approached the police and also there is no averment made in the complaint that the police have not taken any action and also on perusal of the private complaint, there is no any averment with regard to compliance of sections 154(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. It is also important to note that on perusal of the

¶29

¶30

order sheet which is produced at Annexure-C, the learned Magistrate also while referring the complaint invoking section 156(3) has not applied his judicious mind whether the allegation made in the complaint and the documents placed before the court constitute an offence and also not formed an opinion that matter requires investigation and mechanically passed an order directing the investigating officer to investigate the matter and file the report. Having perused the material on record, it is nothing but an abuse of process and non-application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate and the very proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein is bad in law and particularly for non-compliance of sections 154(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C and non-application of judicious mind by the Magistrate and filing of charge sheet is also bad in law. Hence, there cannot be any prosecution against this petitioner without the compliance of the mandatory provisions under section 154(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C and the matter requires to be quashed.

¶31

¶32

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶33

following order : -

¶34

(a) Petition is allowed.

¶35

(b) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner

¶36

herein are quashed.

¶37

(c) However, liberty is given to the complainant/second respondent in compliance of the mandatory provisions can approach the appropriate court.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

ckl

Sri B T Manjappa @ B T Manjappa Gowda v. State by Thirthahalli Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B T Manjappa @ B T Manjappa Gowda v. State by Thirthahalli Police

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

Ganesh S/O Thimma Shetty, Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Ashwini Hemanth Vs State Represented by Police Inspector

N Rajesh Kanna Vs Smt K Preethi

Sushil Mondal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jigar Laxmichand Chadva Vs the State of Karnataka

K J Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka