Disposed

Sri Umakanth Alva v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2021WP/3170/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition seeking closure of a case on acceptance of the B report is dismissed regarding legal procedure, but the case is remanded to the Magistrate to follow statutory procedure and decide within one month due to connectivity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Magistrate to serve B report on complainant; Magistrate to decide in accordance with law within one month.

Sri Umakanth Alva Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3170/2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI UMAKANTH ALVA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAHAS ALVA, CONNECT INTER NATIONAL COMPANY, 7^TH CROSS, 12^TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.

¶9

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.315, ADMIRALITY MANOR, 6^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038. … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

MRS. PHILOMENA DORREN JERRY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, 3^RD FLOOR, RAHATHBAG, NAGAPALYA ROAD, BENGALURU-0560 077. … RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2-SERVED)

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO DIRECT THE HON'BLE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU TO CLOSE THE CRIME NO.284/2017 REGISTERED BY THE INDIRANAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, BY ACCEPITING THE ‘B’ REPORT FILED BY THE R-1.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to direct the Hon’ble X ACMM, Bengaluru to close Crime No.284/2017 registered by the Indira Nagar Police, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC pending on the file of X ACMM Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru by accepting the ‘B’ report filed by respondent No.1 in the interest of justice.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner and in pursuance of the said complaint, the police have investigated the matter and filed the ‘B’ report and the same is not accepted.

¶21

¶22

Hence, the petitioner is seeking the relief of writ of mandamus directing the X ACMM, Bengaluru to close Crime No.284/2017.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶24

it is not in dispute that after the investigation, ‘B’ report is filed. The order sheet which has been produced before the Court discloses that ‘B’ final report was filed. The learned Magistrate has issued notice against the complainant and date was fixed on 04.01.2021. Again on 04.01.2021, the notice was not served. and date is fixed as 04.05.2021. When the ‘B’ report is filed before the Trial Court, the learned Magistrate has to issue notice against the complainant and the records reveals that no notice is served on the complainant. Hence, the date is fixed on 04.05.2021.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner is pressing for a direction to the learned Magistrate to close the case. The same is not permissible under law. Once the ‘B’ report is filed, the learned Magistrate should give notice to the complainant and accordingly the learned Magistrate has proceeded to issue notice against the complainant. An opportunity has to be given to the complainant by giving notice whether she has got to say

¶26

¶27

anything about the ‘B’ report or she intends to file any protest petition. The learned Magistrate without giving the notice and without giving an opportunity to the complainant cannot close the complaint as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to direct the learned Magistrate to pass an order for closure of the case against the procedure established under the law.

¶28

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s son is a International Champion in Carting and non-closure of the ‘B’ report is coming in the way of renewal of the passport. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate and seek for an order to serve the copy of the ‘B’ report on the complainant and also by e-mail and proceed in accordance with law as early as possible. The application for renewal of the passport was filed in the month of December 2020 and in view of the pendency of this case, the petitioner could not get the renewal of the passport and hence, the learned Magistrate is directed to take a decision in accordance with law within one month from today in accordance with law. Though

¶29

¶30

the petitioner is not having any right prior to issuance of process, in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, keeping in view the future of the son of the petitioner, the above order is passed.

¶31

With this observation, writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sri Umakanth Alva v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Umakanth Alva v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Krishnaprasad v Vs Smt Veena Ashwathanarayana

N Chandra @ Layer Chandra @ Vs State of Karnataka

Indiranagar Chit Funds and Trading Company Private Limited Vs Harishkumar T G

B.P.Sunil Kumar Vs Smt. Akhila J K

Mr. Vinod Venugopal Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lalithamma Vs State of Karnataka