Allowed

Sri N G Chandregowda v. State by Saraswathipuram Police Station

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2022WP/21509/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition and quashed the impugned order directing investigation and the subsequent FIR against the petitioner, holding that a private complaint was not maintainable due to the absence of a required affidavit under Cr.P.C. sections.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed; the impugned order directing investigation and the FIR registered against the petitioner were quashed.

Sri N G Chandregowda Vs State by… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.21509/2019 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. N.G.CHANDREGOWDA, S/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, EX-SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL), KSFC, R/AT NO.33, 2ND CROSS, TUNGA ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 029.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE BY SARASWATHIPURAM POLICE STATION, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 009. DULY REPRESENTED BY LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶13

M/S KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, NO.13, 13/1, 2ND FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 009.

¶14

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER SRI. GOPAL BARILY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MYSORE IN P.C.R.NO.22/2019 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.04.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MYSORE IN P.C.R.NO.22/2019 UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

was filed by respondent No.2 alleging that petitioneraccused without verifying the documents pertaining to the subject property accepted the subject property towards collateral security for repayment of loan by the borrower.

¶23

¶24

Learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Police registered F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Sections 119, 409 and 420 of IPC. Hence, the petitioner-accused is before this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner-accused

¶26

submits that offences alleged against the petitioneraccused are cognizable and the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is not accompanied by an affidavit for having complied Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. and the same is not maintainable in view of the case of ‘Mrs.Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of UP and Others reported in AIR 2015 SC 1758.

¶27

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the allegation made by the complainant clearly discloses the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioner-accused and learned Magistrate has rightly

¶28

¶29

referred the complaint. For investigation Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the same does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made

¶31

by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused are cognizable and the complaint is not accompanied by an affidavit for having complied Sections 154(1) and 154(2) of Cr.P.C. and as such the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is not maintainable in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on ‘Mrs.Priyanka Srivastava and another stated supra . Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶35

ii. The impugned proceedings in PCR No.22/2019 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysuru and consequently the F.I.R. registered against the

¶36

¶37

petitioner-accused by the Saraswathipuram Police Station, Mysuru insofar it relates to petitioner-accused is hereby quashed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

GPG

Sri N G Chandregowda v. State by Saraswathipuram Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N G Chandregowda v. State by Saraswathipuram Police Station

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. Manjunath Vs Suresh Mahalingappa Latur

B.K. Manju Vs State by Bagalur Police

Brundha Vs State by K R Nagara Police

Abdul Rehaman Vs H B Mohammed

J Gnanendra Kumar Vs the Chief Secretary

H R Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka