Partly allowed

Sri Paul D Souza v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2021CRL.P/8235/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings invoking Sections 201 and 420 IPC. The court held Section 201 IPC is triable by Magistrate when main offence carries less than 7 years, directing Sessions Court to return records.

What did the court decide?

Sessions Court directed to return all records to the Magistrate Court to proceed with the trial, and the petitioner was granted liberty to apply for discharge.

Sri Paul D Souza Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8235 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri Paul D’souza, S/o Thomas D’souza, Aged about 49 years, R/at 4^th Cross, Right Side, Shanthi Nagar, Shivamogga-577202.

¶9

The name is indicated in the Charge sheet as:

¶10

Sri Disoza Yane Poul Disoza @ Dissoja @ Paul Dissoja, S/o Thamus Dissoja.

¶11

…Petitioner

¶12

(By Sri Amar Correa, Advocate)

¶13

AND

¶14

State of Karnataka By Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga-577202. Represented by its HCGP/ State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru-560001.

¶15

Sri Sunil Kumar, S/o Gopala Shetty, Aged about 41 years,

¶16

¶17

R/at Opp Ammbhabhavani Temple, BB Road, Shivamogga-577202.

¶18

…Respondents

¶19

(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1)

¶20

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 09.06.2020 in C.C.No.403/2020, (arising out of Cr.No.462/2017, currently renumbered as S.C.No.34/2021 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Shivamogga, thereby taking cognizance against this petitioner and unnamed others for the offence punishable under Sections 201 and 420 of IPC vide Annexure-A and etc.

¶21

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the court made the following:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri Amar Correa, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader who has taken notice for respondent No.1 now.

¶24

Petitioner is accused No.1 in S.C.34/2021 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga. In the charge sheet the offences invoked are under sections 420 and 201 of IPC. The

¶25

¶26

petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings in S.C.34/2021 on the ground that there are no materials to proceed against the petitioner for the offence under section 201 IPC. The argument of Sri Amar Correa is that the charge sheet does not indicate the documents which are destroyed for concealing the evidence and therefore he submits that the offence under section 201 of IPC could not have been invoked against the petitioner in the charge sheet and to this limited extent the charge sheet is to be quashed.

¶27

On perusing the charge sheet, it is found that

¶28

there are materials to proceed against the petitioner under section 420 IPC. But, in regard to section 201 IPC, it is to be stated that it is not an independent offence and goes along with the main offence which has been invoked in the charge sheet. In this case section 420 is the main offence and it is alleged that in regard to that offence certain documents are stated

¶29

¶30

to have been destroyed and thus there are no materials. If this is the argument of Sri Amar Correa, the trial court may apply its mind while framing the charge.

¶31

But, it is to be noted here that in the face

¶32

sheet of the order sheet of the trial court it is wrongly mentioned that offence under section 201 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have not meticulously read section 201 of IPC. Section 201 IPC consists of three parts, the last part is pertinent here because the main offence mentioned in the charge sheet is section 420 IPC for which the maximum sentence prescribed under IPC is seven years. In this view, part 3 of section 201 IPC is applicable and if it is considered, the offence under sections 420 and 201 IPC are triable by the Magistrate. This being the position, the committal to the Sessions Court by the Magistrate

¶33

¶34

itself is wrong. Since it has been noticed now, the Sessions Court is hereby directed to return the entire records to the concerned court of Magistrate for proceeding in accordance with law. The petitioner is given liberty to apply for discharge in case there are grounds for discharge.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

ckl

Sri Paul D Souza v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Paul D Souza v. State of Karnataka

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

M/S Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Saurabh Shekhar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anand Bharadwaj Vs the State of Karnataka

Mukesh @ Mukappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Vinodh Kumar N Vs S C Chandrappa

Mohankumar Vs State of Karnataka