Dismissed

Sri B G Venkata Reddy v. Sri Manikanta

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1249/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. It held that the Magistrate was justified in rejecting the private complaint because the petitioner failed to produce documents proving prior police approach, citing Supreme Court law requiring clear statement and affidavit under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to file fresh complaint with documents and affidavit in accordance with Supreme Court judgment.

Sri B G Venkata Reddy Vs Sri Manikanta — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1249 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI B G VENKATA REDDY S/O LATE MR.GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BUDAGAVARAHALLI VILLAGE, SADALI HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105.

¶7

....PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SAMMITH. S., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI MANIKANTA

¶11

S/O VENKATARAYAPPA

¶12

AGED 25 YEARS, JEEP DRIVER, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SIDLAGHATTA, R/AT LAKKAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA (T) - 562 102.

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DIBBURAHALLI POLICE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 212 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU. ....RESPONDENTS

¶14

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL

¶15

¶16

JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA IN P.C.R.NO.87/2017 DATED 28.12.2020 AND DIRECT THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT TO PERUSE THE DOCUMENTS AND ORDER FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY BY THE DY. S.P.,CHINTAMANI AND ETC.

¶17

THIS CRL.R.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision petition is filed by the complainant being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting his complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

Briefly stated the facts are that on 03.08.2017, the petitioner's son namely Sri.B.V.Anil, while riding the motor cycle along with his friend one Bharath Kumar, met with an accident when a Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-40-407 dashed against the said motor cycle. The pillion rider Sri.Bharath Kumar was killed on the spot and the petitioner's son Anil suffered grievous injuries. In connection with this accident, the son-in-law of the petitioner namely Devaraju went to the Dibburahalli police station on 04.08.2017 for registering FIR but the police did not receive the complaint at all. For this reason, the petitioner approached the court of

¶21

¶22

Magistrate, Sidlaghatta with a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and sought reference to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the complaint assigning the reasons that the petitioner had not produced any documents to show that before filing the complaint, he had approached the police. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that there was no compliance of Section 154(1) and Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶23

If it is clear case of the petitioner that before approaching the court of Magistrate, his son-in-law went to the police station for the purpose of lodging FIR in connection with the accident said to have been taken place on 13.08.2017, it was necessary for the petitioner to have produced the documents to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.Priyanka Srivatsava and Another vs. State of U.P. and others - AIR 2015 SC 1758, has clearly held that whenever reference to police is sought under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the complainant must clearly state in the complaint itself that he had approached the police and then the

¶24

¶25

Superintendent of Police for taking action and their failure resulted in a private complaint being filed. It is also obligatory for the complainant to produce the documents to that effect. The complainant should also file an affidavit showing due compliance of these requirements of law.

¶26

This being the position of law, the learned Magistrate is justified in rejecting the complaint. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is therefore dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶27

However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh complaint producing necessary documents and filing affidavit to that effect in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava's case (supra).

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Srl.

Sri B G Venkata Reddy v. Sri Manikanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B G Venkata Reddy v. Sri Manikanta

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

Syed Atheek Ahamed Vs Smt. Nagamma

Smt.Suguna H J Vs Sri.E.Kumaraswamy Naidu

Puttamallaiah Vs State by Chikkanayakanahalli Police

Smt Sharadamma N Vs Sri Manjunatha B S

Power Track Vs Smt Roopa v Hubli

Mr. Manoj Kumar M R Vs State of Karnataka