Allowed

Veerendra Kumar v. the State by the Prl. Civil Judge & Jmfc

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2022CRL.P/6874/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petitioner challenged the registration of a FIR for giving false evidence. The High Court held that the Magistrate failed to conduct a mandatory preliminary enquiry and the complaint was lodged by an unauthorised officer. Section 340 Cr.P.C. procedures were not followed. Petition allowed and registration quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 07.11.2017 registering the case for offences under Sections 191 and 193 IPC is quashed.

Veerendra Kumar Vs the State by the Prl. Civil… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6874 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

VEERENDRA KUMAR S/O NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O.2ND WARD, KUDLIGI TOWN, BELLARY (D).PIN 583135.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC HARIHARA THROUGH THE CHIEF MINISTERIAL OFFICER OF THIS COURT BY NAME SMT.CHAYA RPTD., BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT, BENGLAURU-560001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA.R.D, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HARIHARA AND COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.1432/2017, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 191 AND 193 OF IPC,

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HARIHARA.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. was lodged by

¶20

the Shiresthedar against the petitioner alleging that on 7.11.2017, the petitioner has given evidence before the Trial Court as CW-5/PW-3 in C.C.No.405/2015 stating that, the vehicle in question is parked in Court Compound and on verification it was found that the vehicle was not parked in the Court Compound and on enquiry, the petitioner stated that his brother is bringing the car and thereby has given false evidence before the Court. The learned Magistrate registered the case against the petitioner. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has not recorded a finding as to what are the offences committed by the

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

petitioner by giving false evidence before the Court and also has not conducted preliminary enquiry before filing the compliant against the petitioner. He further submits that the Court concerned has not lodged the complaint as specified under Section 340 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. Hence, he submits that the registration of the case against the petitioner is not sustainable in law.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner having given the false evidence, the learned Magistrate has rightly registered the case against the petitioner.

¶25

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶26

The petitioner was examined as CW-5 before the

¶27

trial Court and during the course of examination-in-chief, the petitioner has stated that the car in question is parked in the Court Compound and on verification it was found that the car

¶28

-:4:-

¶29

was not parked in the Court Compound and on a query put to the petitioner he stated that his brother will bring the car.

¶30

Section 340 Cr.P.C. mandates that before filing a complaint, the learned Magistrate is required to hold preliminary enquiry and recorded a finding as to what are the offences committed by the petitioner and thereafter to lodge a complaint in writing before the learned Magistrate. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has not conducted preliminary enquiry as required under Section 341(b) of Cr.P.C., and also complaint is not lodged by the Court concerned but it is lodged by the Shiresthedar who is not the authorized officer and as such the same is not permissible as specified in section 340 of Cr.P.C.

¶31

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed

¶34

-:5:-

¶35

ii. Impugned order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Harihar in C.C.No.1432/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Veerendra Kumar v. the State by the Prl. Civil Judge & Jmfc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerendra Kumar v. the State by the Prl. Civil Judge & Jmfc

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

Smt T Nagarathna @ Nagamma Vs Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited

Mr. T. v. Mohan Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Sri T Sudhakar Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

M/S Meliora Assets Reconstruction Company Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Gstaad Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sabiha Begum Vs State of Karnataka