Partly allowed

Sr. Anto Virgin Mary v. Sri G P Venkatachalapathi

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023CRL.P/2092/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition in part and quashed the order of the trial court taking cognizance of offences under Sections 324 and 342 IPC. The case was remanded to the trial court to first consider the 'B' report before proceeding further.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.07.2014 taking cognizance was quashed and the case remanded to the trial court to consider the 'B' report within three months.

Sr. Anto Virgin Mary Vs Sri G P Venkatachalapathi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46081 CRL.P No. 2092 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2092 OF 2017

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SR. ANTO VIRGIN MARY @ MARY VINITHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ST.ANN'S HOME, ELANGULAM, PARAPADY POST OFFICE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 627 110.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. AMAR CORREA., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI G P VENKATACHALAPATHI S/O PILLANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O M.T.C.COLONY, SHRINAGARA, GOURIBIDANUR TOWN & TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 208.

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GAURIBIDANUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R2)

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46081 CRL.P No. 2092 of 2017

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2014 OF ISSUING PROCESS AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.725/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., GOURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 324 AND 342 OF IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.07.2014 by which the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Gowribidanur took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 342 of IPC in C.C. No.725/2014.

¶19

On the basis of information furnished by respondent No.1 that cognizable offence was committed by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 registered Crime No. 21/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 342 of IPC. After conducting an investigation, the respondent No.2 filed a ‘B’ report before the trial Court. The trial Court issued notice to respondent No.1, consequent to which, he filed a protest petition. The trial

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46081 CRL.P No. 2092 of 2017

¶21

Court recorded the sworn statement of respondent No.1 and the witnesses and took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 342 of IPC.

¶22

Being aggrieved by the same, this petition is

¶23

filed.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a ‘B’ report is filed, it is incumbent upon the trial Court to peruse the protest petition and consider whether in the face of the protest petition the ‘B’ report deserves to be accepted or not. It is only upon rejection of the 'B' report, that the trial Court can conduct an enquiry into the protest petition filed by the respondent No.1 by recording the sworn statement of the witnesses concerned. He submits that since this has not been complied, the order taking cognizance and the consequent proceeding deserves to be quashed.

¶25

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶26

Pleader submitted that the respondent No.1 alleged that his son suffered injuries, when the accused/petitioner

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46081 CRL.P No. 2092 of 2017

¶28

threw a sharp pencil at the son of the respondent No.1 when he was at school and thus he suffered injury in his right eye and now he has lost complete vision in the right eye and therefore, the trial Court was justified in taking cognizance notwithstanding the ‘B’ report filed. The respondent No.1 who is present in person but who has not engaged any advocate submitted that his son suffered injury in the right eye and he has lost vision completely in the right eye and therefore, the petitioner/accused deserves to be punished.

¶29

Heard submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader and the respondent No.1 who is present in person.

¶30

The respondent No.2 while investigating Crime No.21/2012, had recorded the statements of various parents who had admitted their children into the school, several staff members of the school and found that the injury suffered by the son of the respondent No.1 was not

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46081 CRL.P No. 2092 of 2017

¶32

due to any act attributable to the petitioner/accused. He also found that the school authorities had taken prompt and immediate care to shift the son of the respondent No.1 to the hospital. The respondent No.2 therefore filed a ‘B’ report claiming that the respondent No.1 had filed a complaint only to extract money from the petitioner/accused. When the ‘B’ report was placed before the Court and when the respondent No.1 had filed a protest petition, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to first verify whether the investigation conducted by the respondent No.2 was just and proper and whether the

¶33

case required further investigation. It is only upon considering the acceptance of ‘B’ report that the trial Court would enter upon the question, Whether it could take cognizance of the offences. The procedure adopted by the trial Court in the present case, in not considering the ‘B’ report but proceeding to record the sworn statement of the respondent No.1 and the witnesses is thoroughly improper and incorrect. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Ravi Kumar v/s Mrs. K.M.C.

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46081 CRL.P No. 2092 of 2017

¶35

Vasantha and Another reported in ILR 2018 Kar 1725 held that the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to take cognizance only upon rejecting the 'B' report, which is followed in various judgments of this Court. Therefore, the order 30.07.2014 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 342 of IPC registered in C.C. No.725/2014 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Gowribidanur, taking cognizance of the offences of the petitioner/accused deserves to be quashed.

¶36

In that view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed in part and the order dated 30.07.2014 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 342 of IPC registered in C.C. No.725/2014 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Gowribidanur, is quashed. The case is remitted back to the trial Court which shall first consider the ‘B’ report filed by the respondent No.2 in the light of the Protest Petition filed by the respondent No.1 and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the incident allegedly occurred in

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:46081 CRL.P No. 2092 of 2017

¶39

the year 2011, it is appropriate to direct the trial Court to consider the acceptance or otherwise of the ‘B’ report filed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and then proceed in accordance with law.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

PSJ

Sr. Anto Virgin Mary v. Sri G P Venkatachalapathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sr. Anto Virgin Mary v. Sri G P Venkatachalapathi

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

Sri. Krishnamurthy Subramanya Vs Smt Yogeetha B S

G C Shanthaveerappa Vs State of Karnataka

Lt Col.Piyush Kumar Sanwal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Suguna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.William Anoop Nicodemus Vs Ms.Sanghamitra Das

K L Ravindranatha Reddy Vs Smt Deveeramma K N