Allowed

A.S Bheemappa v. P.S Guruprasad

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2022CRL.P/4963/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash proceedings initiated after a police investigation. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order for issuing process without first rejecting the police B-report, remitting the matter to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.6.2013 passing issuance of process is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed further from the stage of consideration of the B-repor

A.S Bheemappa Vs P.S Guruprasad — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4963 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

A.S BHEEMAPPA

¶9

S/O LATE THIMMAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS BUSINESS R/AT NO.16/2 WEST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560004.

¶10

A B NARENDRA

¶11

S/O A S BHEEMAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS SOFT WARE BUSINESS R/AT NO.16/2,

¶12

WEST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560004.

¶13

HARISH

¶14

S/O LATE LINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ELECTRICAL ENGINEER R/AT NO.1434, 2ND CROSS CHANDRALAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BANGALORE-560040.

¶15

¶16

M R SRIPAD JOIS S/O LATE M RAMA JOIS AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BUSINES CUM MANAGER M/S AKASH WEALTH CREATIVE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.305/A KASTURIDHAMA APARTMENT 8TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003.

¶17

5. GANESH BANDARU

¶18

S/O LATE B N RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS CIVIL CONTRACTOR R/AT NO.249, 15TH MAIN 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE-560041.

¶19

ROHAN SALIYAN

¶20

S/O LATE PRAVEEN KUMAR SALIYAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, CIVIL CONTRACTOR, R/AT NO.41/42 THIRU THIRUKAR HOUSE KALYAN NAGARA, BABUSAB PALYA BANGALORE-560043

¶21

K S JAGANNATH

¶22

S/O LATE KUPPASWAMY IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DEVELOPERS, R/AT NO.137, 9TH CROSS MARAGOS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003. ...PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI SHANKARAPPA S, ADVOCATE)

¶24

¶25

AND:

¶26

P.S GURUPRASAD

¶27

S/O SHANKARANARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.194, ISWARYA 100 FEET RING ROAD BSK III STAGE, IST BLOCK BANGALORE-560085.

¶28

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA P.S.,

¶29

REP. BY SPP,

¶30

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 10.03.2021)

¶31

(BY SRI V.G.PRASAD FOR R1,

¶32

SMT.LEENA C SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)

¶33

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2013 PASSED BY THE C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9829/2013 (PCR NO.2989/2013) AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.9829/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE C.M.M., BANGALORE.

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

The 1st respondent filed a private complaint under Section

¶38

200 of Cr.PC against accused Nos.1 to 7 before the jurisdictional

¶39

Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B),

¶40

¶41

143, 144, 149, 341, 342, 363, 365, 384, 392 and 506(B) of IPC. The jurisdictional Magistrate referred the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. The jurisdictional police after investigation filed a B' report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The 1st respondent filed a protest petition for rejecting the B' report. The jurisdictional Magistrate thereafter issued process to the petitioners. Hence, this petition.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the jurisdictional Magistrate without rejecting the `B' report at the first instance and without taking cognizance has issued process to the petitioner and as such, the same is impermissible in law. In support, he placed a reliance on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P No.536/2017 disposed of 27th day of November, 2017.

¶43

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader justifies that the police after investigation has filed `B' report.

¶44

¶45

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶46

counsel for the parties.

¶47

The police after investigation filed the B' report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The 1st respondent filed a protest petition for rejecting the B' report. Perusal of order sheet indicates that the jurisdictional Magistrate without rejecting the B' report at the first instance has issued process to the petitioner. It is settled law that without considering the B' report and rejecting the 'B' report, the issuance of summons is not permissible in law as held in the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Arvind Rao H.T. and Another -Vs- Dr. Kumuda and Another reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1757 and also in the case of Dr. Ravikumar -vs- Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha and Another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725.

¶48

In view of the ratio enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid case, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶49

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶52

ii) The impugned order dated 28.6.2013 passed in CC No.9829/2013 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore is hereby quashed.

¶53

iii) The matter is remitted to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore to proceed further from the stage of consideration of `B' report.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

BKM

A.S Bheemappa v. P.S Guruprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.S Bheemappa v. P.S Guruprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Gm Infinite Dwelling (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Smt J Jayamma Vs the Zilla Panchayath

Sri Yogesh M S Vs State by Its

Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nilakanta T Y Vs the State of Karnataka

Amit Kumar Shetty Vs State of Karnataka by