Allowed

Sri Sangaraj v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2024CRL.P/201813/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings for offences under Section 176 IPC and Section 7 RI(PM) Act, arguing cognizance on a police report violated the Section 195 Cr.P.C. bar. Relying on the coordinate Bench's reasoning in the earlier petition by accused No.1 and Mallikarjuna, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.439/2018 pending before Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi against accused Nos.2 to 16 quashed; petition dismissed as withdrawn regarding petitioner No.1.

Sri Sangaraj Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201813 OF 2023 (482)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SANGARAJ S/O ANNARAYA DESAI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶10

SRI. NIJAPPA

¶11

S/O SHETTEPPA BHAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶12

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. TULAJAPPA S/O TIRUKAPPA TULASIGERI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶14

SRI. IRANAGOUDA S/O BASAPPA KOMAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶15

SRI. GURAPPA S/O NANDAPPA GANI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023

¶18

SRI. HANAMANTH S/O CHANDRAPPA GIDDAPPAGOL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶19

SRI. SRISHAIL

¶20

S/O SANNABASAPPA UPPALDINNI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶21

SRI. RAMANNA S/O YALLAPP MATTIHAL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶22

SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O UPPASEPPA GIDDAPPAGOL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶23

SRI. DUNDAPPA S/O GURULINGAPPA UPPALDINNI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶24

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA BALAGOND, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶25

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O GURAPPA GANIGAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023

¶27

SRI. BABU S/O SHANKREPPA BHAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶28

SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA SOUDI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶29

SRI. RAYAPPAGOUDA S/O BASAPPA KOMAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶30

SRI. SANGAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA GIDDAPPAGOL, AGE MAJOR OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE

¶31

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KOLHAR TQ BASAVANA BAGEWADI DIST VIJAYPUR

¶32

…PETITIONERS

¶33

(BY SRI. S S MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BASAVANA BAGEWADI PS., REPTD BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING KALABURAGI

¶36

SRI. SIDDESH S/O NINGAPPA KAROOR

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023

¶39

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCCUPATION SERVICE KBJNL, SRINAGAR COLONY, SOLAPUR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. SHAHABUDDIN HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶42

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.439/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 176 OF IPC AND SECTION 7 OF THE RI (PM) ACT, 1988 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BASAVANA BAGEWADI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶43

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

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by mistake petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is also made as a party to this petition. He has already approached this Court earlier in Crl.P.No.200513/2019 and his petition was allowed by this Court on 18.01.2021.

¶46

Submission is placed on record.

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023

¶48

Petition is dismissed as withdrawn insofar as

¶49

petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is concerned.

¶50

Accused Nos.2 to 16 in C.C.No.439/2018

¶51

pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi for the offence punishable under Section 176 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (for short RI(PM) Act) are before this Court with a prayer to quash entire proceedings in the said case against them.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused No.1 has already approached this Court earlier in Crl.P.No.200513/2019 and this Court has allowed the petition vide order dated 18.01.2021 and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.439/2018 has been quashed against him. He submits that in view of the bar under Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023

¶55

Cr.P.C.) trial Court could not take cognizance for the

¶56

offence punishable under Section 176 of IPC.

¶57

Materials on record would go to show that FIR

¶58

was registered in Cr.No.84/2018 by Kolhar Police Station Vijayapura District for the offence punishable under Section 176 of IPC and Section 7 of RI (PM) Act. Police after investigation have filed charge sheet and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the charge sheeted offences.

¶59

Accused No.1 had approached this Court in Crl.No.200513/2019 challenging the impugned

¶60

proceedings on the ground that in view of the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. trial Court could not have taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 176 of IPC. This Court in Crl.P.No.200513/2019 which was filed by petitioner No.1 in the present proceedings in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 has observed as follows:

¶61

"7. From reading of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. it is very clear in cases where the offence under Section 176 of IPC is

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023

¶64

included, the Court cannot take cognizance of such offence except on a complaint in writing by a public servant. In the case on hand, the complaint has been lodged by the second respondent before the police who have investigated into the matter and have now filed the charge sheet. In view of the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. the Court below had not jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 176 of IPC on the basis of a police report filed. Further, from perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court, it is very clear that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the alleged offence against the petitioner in a mechanical manner without application of his judicious mind. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mallikarjuna and Others vs. The State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2018 KAR 354 in paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 has held has follows:

¶65

"12. The Judicial Magistrates, who are empowered to summon the accused under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should always keep it in mind that summoning the accused is a serious matter and the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The summoning order must reflect that the Magistrate has applied his judicious mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The order of summoning the accused need not be a speaking order and a detailed

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023

¶67

¶68

one. But, it should not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Where reasons are not assigned, however short it may be, for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for issuance of summons, such summoning order would become bad in law. The Magistrates, while issuing process, are not required to meticulously examine and evaluate the materials on record. However, he is only required to record reasons, however short, or brief it may be, which indicate the application of mind by the Magistrate. That is all expected from him at that stage. The expression "opinion" and "sufficient ground" under Section 204 gives an indication that before issuing process, the Magistrate should show that on what material, at least, he has formed his opinion that it is a fit case to issue process. Without applying his judicious mind and without even looking to the facts of the case, mechanically, issuing process only on the basis of the operative portion of the charge-sheet or the complaint does not amount to application of mind by a Magistrate.

¶69

13. Looking to the above facts and circumstances and the legal infirmities found in the above said case, I am of the

¶70

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023

¶71

opinion that the learned Magistrate, without applying his judicious mind, has mechanically passed an order taking cognizance of the offences and the same is bad in law. All further proceedings, which has taken place in pursuance of that, is vitiated by a serious irregularity which cannot be cured. Hence, there is no other go for this Court but to quash the proceedings."

¶72

8. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the criminal proceedings which is pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi in C.C.No.439/2018 as against the petitioner is liable to be quashed."

¶73

The reasoning assigned by this Court for

¶74

quashing the proceedings as against accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.200513/2019 is squarely applicable to the case on hand.

¶75

Under circumstances, I am of the view that the prayer made by the petitioners herein is required to be answered in affirmative.

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2890 CRL.P No. 201813 of 2023

¶78

Accordingly, the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶81

The entire proceedings in CC No.439/2018 pending

¶82

before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi for the offences punishable under Section 176 of IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of

¶83

Misuse) Act, 1988 is quashed.

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

BVK

¶86

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

Sri Sangaraj v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sangaraj v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

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 Rangappa S/O Dyamanna Chigari Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Maruti S/O Yallappa Kallavaddar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivakumar S/O Basavaraj Mestri Vs State of Karnataka

Kallappa Basappa Hadapad S/O Basappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Johns Kumar S/O Maruti Kareppagol Vs State of Karnataka

Raju S/O Rudrappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka