Allowed

Sri H D Gangaraj v. State by Commercial Street

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2023CRL.P/3934/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a CrPC petition under Section 482 praying to quash criminal proceedings. The court allowed the petition, quashing the prosecution on the grounds that the investigation into non-cognizable offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of IPC was conducted without complying with the mandatory procedure under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., and the material disclosed no offence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal prosecution in C.C.No.53623/2018 before the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, concerning offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of IPC is quashed.

Sri H D Gangaraj Vs State by Commercial Street — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 3934 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3934 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI H D GANGARAJ S/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO 65, 5TH MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560009 AND ALSO R/AT SARAPANTAIN ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-20

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE BANGALORE -01 REPRESENTED BY S.P.P

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KARNAATAKA-560 001.

¶15

BASANTHKUMAR PATIL AGE- MAJOR, NO.3, 4TH MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-09

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.BALASUBRAMANYA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RACHITA NANAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.53623/2018 PENDING BEFORE TEH COURT OF XLIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 3934 of 2018

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution initiated against him in C.C.No.53623/2018 pending trial before the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC.

¶23

The respondent No.2 lodged a report with respondent No.1 on 23.10.2017 stating that he had agreed to sell a hotel belonging to him to the petitioner for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,00,00,000/- and had received a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- as advance. Later, petitioner approached respondent No.2 to reduce the price of the property, which was refused by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 alleged that petitioner started abusing him in the presence of various advocates in the office of the advocate Mr.H.R.Ananthakrishna Murthy, who represented both the respondent No.2 and the petitioner. He alleged that the petitioner threatened to kill him in full pubic view. Since the offences alleged against the petitioner were non-cognizable, the Investigating Officer

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 3934 of 2018

¶26

submitted a request before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 24.10.2017. The jurisdictional Magistrate merely permitted the Investigating Officer to take up investigation without passing appropriate orders and without requiring the Investigating Officer to file a complaint as prescribed under law. Later, the Investigating Officer took up investigation and filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC. The trial Court took cognizance of the said offences and registered C.C.No.53623/2018. Being aggrieved by the charge sheet filed as well as the prosecution initiated, the present petition is filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint did not disclose the commission of offence more particularly offence under Section 323, 504, and 506 of IPC. He submitted that since all the offences were non-cognizable in nature, proceedings as prescribed under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. ought to have been followed, which in the present case was not followed. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is liable to be set at naught.

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 3934 of 2018

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner had threatened to kill respondent No.2 and this happened in the presence of various advocates in the office of advocate for the petitioner and respondent No.2. He submitted that the Magistrate rightly permitted the Investigating Officer to investigate these offences as they were non-cognizable in nature.

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand supported the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶32

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶33

A perusal of the complaint fairly indicates that the dispute arose out of contract between the petitioner and respondent No.2 who intended to sell a hotel belonging to him. Except the allegation that petitioner threatened to kill respondent No.2, there is no material to justify the allegation. Be that as it may, when the Investigating Officer had made a

¶34

5 - CRL.P No. 3934 of 2018

¶35

request before the trial Court to investigate a non-cognizable offence, the trial Court ought to have directed him to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

¶36

"155(2) - No Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial".

¶37

In view of the mandatory provision of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., the prosecution of the petitioner stands vitiated. Even otherwise, the material placed on record by the prosecution do not justify an offence punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶38

Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.53623/2018 on the file of XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC is hereby quashed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

GPG

Sri H D Gangaraj v. State by Commercial Street

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H D Gangaraj v. State by Commercial Street

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

Farooq Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

C K Ansar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka

N.K. Umesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Annaiappa Vs State of Karnataka

Gayathri Shivaraj Vs State of Karnataka