Allowed

Manjunatha v. State by Sub Inspector of Police

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022CRL.P/5886/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash the Session Judge's order favoring a revision petitioner. Court allowed the petition quashing the impugned order, directing dismissal of the revision petition based on lack of complainant allegations.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Crl.RP.No.50/2016.

Manjunatha Vs State by Sub Inspector of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5886/2017

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MANJUNATHA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FORESTER SHIKARIPURA – 577 427 SHIMOGA DISTRICT

¶9

SHIVARAJA PADAKI S/O RAMANNA PADAKI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST GUARD GULBARGA DIVISION GULBARGA – 585 104

¶10

RAVI

¶11

S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER CHORADI, ANANDAPURAM RANGE SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 412

¶12

CHANDRASHETTY S/O SOORAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER CHORADI, ANANDAPURAM RANGE SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 412

¶13

5. KERIYAPPA S/O HUCCHAPPA

¶14

¶15

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER CHORADI, ANANDAPURAM RANGE SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 412 ...PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI.HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE) AND :

¶17

STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUMSI POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE – 560 001 2. YOGARAJ S/O JATTAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O BYADANAI, TUPPUR POST SHIVAMOGGA TALUK – 577 412 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.ROHITH B J, HCGP FOR R1; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.R.P.NO.50/2016 DATED 09.03.2017 REVERSING THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 IN CR.NO.729/2014 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIVAMOGGA.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The FIR was registered on 16.06.2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 323, 324, 353, 506(2), 149 of IPC in Crime No.199/2014 against respondent No.2 and others alleging that respondent No.2 and others have illegally interfered with the discharge of official duty of the petitioner/accused herein.

¶24

On 17.06.2014, the second respondent lodged

¶25

FIR alleging that the petitioners-accused assaulted him and also have lodged a false FIR. The Police registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 354, 504, 506,149 of IPC in Crime No. 200/2014. The police after the investigation submitted ‘B’ report before the learned Magistrate against which, the second respondent filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate accepted the ‘B’ report against which the second respondent filed Criminal Revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.PC., The learned Session Judge allowed the

¶26

¶27

Criminal Revision Petition and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to afford an opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence and to pass orders in accordance with law. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶28

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the FIR lodged by the second respondent was a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner against the second respondent and others which clearly implies that the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to circumvent the FIR lodged against him. He further submitted that the protest memo filed by the second respondent is not in the form of the complaint and there is no allegation against the petitioner-accused for having committed the aforesaid offence and therefore it was not a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Cr.PC.

¶29

In support of his case, he relied on a decision

¶30

of the Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of

¶31

¶32

Basappa and Ors V/s State of Karnataka and Anr reported in ILR 1987 KAR 994.

¶33

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶34

submits that the police after the investigation rightly filed the ‘B’ report.

¶35

The second respondent though served notice remained absent.

¶36

I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the FIR was registered against the second respondent and thereafter the second respondent lodged the FIR against the petitioner/accused. The police after the investigation rightly submitted the ‘B’ report to the learned Magistrate stating that the FIR lodged by the second respondent was false and counterblast to the FIR registered against him. Hence in the absence of any material against the petitioner/accused for having committed the aforesaid offence, the impugned

¶38

¶39

order passed by the learned Session judge is

¶40

impermissible.

¶41

Even otherwise, the false protest petition filed to the ‘B’ report submitted by the police indicate that the petition is not in the form of a complaint and there is no specific allegation as against the petitioner/accused for having committed the offence alleged against them.

¶42

The coordinate bench of this Court in Basappa’s case referred to supra has held that the question of the Magistrate taking cognizance on the basis of the protest memo does not arise, particularly when the protest memo is not in the form of a complaint and there are no allegations constituting any offence in the protest memo filed and there is also no request to take action.

¶43

In view of the ratio narrated in the aforesaid decision, the protest memo filed by the second respondent is not in the form of a complaint and also there are no specific allegation constituting any offence in the said

¶44

¶45

memo. Hence the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions judge is not questionable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶48

ii. The impugned order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Crl.RP.No.50/2016 reversing the order dated 25.05.2016 in Cr.No.729/2014 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivmogga is hereby quashed and consequently the revision petition filed by respondent No.2 is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

PKN

Manjunatha v. State by Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha v. State by Sub Inspector of Police

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

Dr Subbarao R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sushruta Vishrathi Dhama Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sathyajeeth Surathkal Vs the State of Karnataka

J a Ahmed Vs State by

Dr Gurukanth Rao N Vs Dr Ranjeetha Shenoy

Smt.Shehnaz Sulthana Vs the State Transport Authority