Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 341, 354-A, 504, 506 and 509 IPC, contending no offence was made out and the Magistrate took cognizance without applying his mind. The court held higher courts must not lightly interfere with cognizance orders and, noting ten eye-witness statements, dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3824 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.S G BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 159, "PRESTIGE OASIS", RAJANAKUNTE, ADDI VISHWANATHAPURA, BENGALURU-560 094.
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, MADIVALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.AJITH.A.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6106/2017 IN THE COURT OF THE III ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing
of the proceedings in C.C.6106/2017 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections
3
341, 354-A, 504, 506, 509 read wi7th Section 34 of IPC.
On 8.6.2015, the sub-inspector of Police, Madiwala registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.1027/2015 for offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 506, 509 read with Section 149 of IPC on the basis of the information lodged by respondent No.1.
4
judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P. 10263/2021. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Rajendra Rajoriya .vs. Jagat Narain Thapak and another1 . Referring to these judgments, he would vehemently argue and contend that the Magistrate while taking cognizance has not applied his mind. The order taking cognizance does not reflect that Magistrate has satisfied himself independently before taking cognizance.
1 AIR 2018 sc 1229
5
of ten eye witnesses and therefore, no indulgence can
be granted at this juncture.
petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent-complainant and the learned SPP.
the area exclusively within the domain of the magistrate. The expression “take cognizance of an offence” is not defined in the Code. In its broad and literal sense it would mean “take notice of an offence”
and would include the taking notice of an offence in a judicial capacity with a view to the initiation of judicial proceedings against the offender in respect of that offence. Therefore, at this stage, the magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint and not whether there are sufficient ground for conviction. Whether evidence
6
is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the time of trial and not at the stage of an inquiry. At the stage of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record his detailed reasons.
2 AIR 2012 SC 1921
7
ORDER
The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
*alb/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed for absence of ingredients of the offences and non-application of mind by the Magistrate in taking cognizance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajendra Rajoriya vs. Jagat Narain Thapak and anotherReferred
AIR 2018 sc 1229 · Who else cites this
Nupur Talwar vs. CBIApplied¶8
AIR 2012 SC 1921 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chetan Garga
Kaushik Maitra
Jamshed Surti
Deena Nagesh
State of Karnataka by the Police Sub-Inspector, Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
