Disposed

Sri. Srinivas. v. Vs State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2021CRL.P/1184/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court accepted the petitioner's submission that the Magistrate mechanically took cognizance without applying a judicious mind or examining the investigation material. The petition was disposed by remitting the matter to the Magistrate to reconsider the charge sheet and statements. An interim stay application was also disposed of as it did not survive the main disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed by remitting the matter to the learned Magistrate to consider the charge sheet and statements before taking cognizance.

Sri. Srinivas. v Vs State of Karnataka by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1184/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SRINIVAS. V. S/O OBANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT CHAMARAJAPETE 23^RD WARD, CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN CHIKKABALLAPUR-5612101.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI B.V.SRINATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN POLICE CHIKKABALLAPUR REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001

¶13

2 . SRI V. SRINIVASA RAJU S/O LATE VARDA RAJU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O AT NO.12, 10^TH MAIN ROAD RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU-80

¶14

… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; SRI M.S.HARISH, ADVOCATE 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.43/2019 (PCR NO.144/2015) ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 465 AND 468 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.43/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapura and pass such other orders as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein has filed the private complaint, which is numbered as PCR No.144/2015 and the matter was referred to the investigating officer to investigate the matter and file the report. The investigating officer filed the charge sheet and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 07.09.2019 issued the process against the accused and while issuing the process, the learned

¶21

¶22

Magistrate has mechanically passed the order “Perused the papers. Cognizance taken”.

¶23

It is contended by the learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner that the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind while taking the cognizance as to whether the investigation material i.e., the charge sheet, enclosures and statements would prima facie disclose the commission of an offence to proceed against the petitioner, and the same has not been stated in the order. Learned Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind and even not looked into the charge sheet, except mentioning “Perused the papers. Cognizance taken”. While issuing the process against the accused, learned Magistrate has to consider the material available on record and there is no need to pass any detail order. However, he has to apply his judicious mind while issuing the process, the same has not been done. Hence, the matter requires to be remitted back to the learned Magistrate to consider the materials i.e., charge sheet, enclosures including the statements of the witnesses and then to take a decision as to whether the material collected by

¶25

¶26

the investigating officer prima facie discloses the commission of offence to subject the petitioner herein for trial.

¶27

With this observation, the petition is disposed off.

¶28

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.1/2021 for

¶29

stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

PYR

Sri. Srinivas. v. Vs State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Srinivas. v. Vs State of Karnataka by

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

Joseph Chacko Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Dewaraju Vs State by District Forest Officer

Hanumantha Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K.S. Parveez Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh R, Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Ronald M Monis Vs Mr. Jaffar Sharief