Allowed

Rajesh Poojari @ Rajesh @ Ranganath v. State

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021CRL.P/6267/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Quashing order for proclamation and attachment due to procedural errors regarding summons service and incorrect issuance of process. Ordered petitioner to surrender and deposit 20% of bail amount as penalty.

What did the court decide?

Order quashed; petitioner to surrender and get fresh bail; deposit 20% of bond as penalty.

Rajesh Poojari @ Rajesh @ Ranganath Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6267 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJESH POOJARI @ RAJESH @ RANGANATH S/O. GANAPUU POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT 27/24, 15^TH MAIN, 17^TH CROSS, NEAR MAHAVEER STING APARTMENTS, J.P. NAGAR, 6^TH STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI C.N. RAJU, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY JAYANAGARA POLICE, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

VIJAYARAGHAVAN M.R. S/O. NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, RESIDING AT CANARA BANK HOUSING FINANCE BRANCH, SOUTH-END ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1)

¶16

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN C.C. NO.19661 OF 2014 DATED 20-11-2019 PASSED BY THE XXXVII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.360 OF 2010 OF JAYANAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 467, 468, 471, 472 AND 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC, BY ALLOWING THE PETITION.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1-State.

¶22

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order 20-11-2019 passed by the XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.19661 of 2014 for issuing proclamation and attachment against the petitioner.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1State.

¶24

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that, respondent No.1 Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and another accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged that the petitioner was arrested on 3-9-2012 and he was released on bail on 15-9-2012. Thereafter, after completing investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet on 22-7-2014. The Trial Court issued summons to the petitioner, but summons was not served upon him and subsequently, non-bailable warrant was issued and later, proclamation and attachment under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. was issued against the petitioner.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that summons was not served upon the petitioner and he is ready to appear before the Court and take the trial. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶27

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader objects the petition.

¶28

¶29

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the

¶30

record, the order-sheet of the Trial Court reveals that the petitioner was released on bail on executing self bond for Rs.50,000/- along cash surety of Rs.5,000/-. The case was posted to 22-9-2012. Subsequently, the Police filed chargesheet on 22-7-2014 and the Trial Court issued summons to the petitioner (accused No.1) and non-bailable warrant to accused No.2, who was absconding as per the charge-sheet. The order-sheet does not reveal whether the summons was served upon the petitioner or not. Looking to the ordersheet, the summons is not served upon the petitioner. However, non-bailable warrant was issued against accused Nos.1 and 2 and subsequently, on 8-5-2017, proclamation was issued. Since the Police did not produce any report under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., the Trial Court issued proclamation under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C., which is not correct. On perusal of the order-sheet, it reveals that on 21-9-2019, the petitioner was absent and there was no representation on his behalf. Investigating Officer has not

¶31

¶32

submitted the report regarding proclamation effected against the absconding accused persons and hence, the Trial Court issued proclamation under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. In fact, Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. is for attachment and Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is for issuing proclamation. Proclamation was issued on 8-5-2017 and the Police required to submit the report and thereafter, the Court required to issue process under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. for attaching the property of the accused. Therefore, the Trial Court committed error in issuing the process of proclamation. There is no record to show that the petitioner was served with the summons and no report of the Police forthcoming that the petitioner is not residing in the said address. Such being the case, issuing proclamation and attachment is not correct. The order passed against the petitioner for proclamation and attachment requires to be set aside. Further, the petitioner was absconding and not chosen to appear before the Court for last 12 years, after his release on bail and thereby, he has violated the terms of the bail conditions. Hence, he has to

¶33

¶34

pay 20% of the earlier personal bond amount as penalty. Accordingly, I pass the following

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

Criminal petition is allowed . The order 20-11-2019 passed by the XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.19661 of 2014 for issuing proclamation and attachment against the petitioner is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Trial Court and seek fresh bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court to consider the same and before the release of the petitioner, he shall deposit 20% of the earlier personal bond amount. i.e. Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as penalty before the Trial Court.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

kvk

Rajesh Poojari @ Rajesh @ Ranganath v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Poojari @ Rajesh @ Ranganath v. State

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

Mallikarjun Vagga Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nithin Vs the State of Karnataka

Savitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahesh Vs State of Karnataka

Imran Vs the State of Karnataka

Asif Nawaz Khan Vs State by Women Police Station