Disposed

Manjunath M @ Manja @ Kodati Manja v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024CRL.P/9955/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.3 sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 394/395 IPC on par with co-accused who had obtained relief earlier. The High Court held the Magistrate's fresh cognizance dated 11.10.2023 excluded Sections 395 and 397 IPC for all accused and had attained finality after withdrawal of a challenge, so no clarification was needed; petition disposed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Manjunath M @ Manja @ Kodati Manja Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42589 CRL.P No. 9955 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9955 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJUNATH M @ MANJA @ KODATI MANJA S/O MUNIRAJU K.M, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A E 98/1, 8TH CROSS, AMBEDKAR LAYOUT, ELLUKUNTE VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560102

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR G M,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIWALA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001

¶13

SUDHA W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO 36, HOSSPALYA, NEAR SAMSON'S SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560068

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT WAHEEDA M M, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF CRIMINAL CASE IN CC NO.18854/2016 (REGISTERED BY TAKING COGNIZANCE IN CRIME NO.1698/2015). PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF 39TH ACMM COURT AT BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 427, 143, 147, 448, 454, 395

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:42589 CRL.P No. 9955 of 2024

¶17

AND 397 R/W 149 OF IPC, SO AS IT PERTAINS TO THE EXTENT AND AGAINST THE ACCUSE NO.3/PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This criminal petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) for quashing the criminal proceedings in respect of C.C. No.18854/2016 for having taken cognizance in Crime No.1698/2015 on the file of 39^th ACMM Court, Bengaluru and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 448, 454, 395 and 397 r/w 149 of IPC.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that the police have registered the FIR initially for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 143, 147, 149, 448 of IPC and after investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet on 8.9.2015 by adding Sections 395, 397 along with Section 454 of IPC and the learned Magistrate said to have committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, which was challenged by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 by filing a criminal petition

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42589 CRL.P No. 9955 of 2024

¶24

No.3155/2020 which came to be allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.09.2020 and set aside the order of committal by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2014) 3 SCC 306 and remitted the matter back to the learned Magistrate for application of mind and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law holding that whether the offences under Sections 395 and 397 is made out or not and also directed the learned Magistrate to look into the veracity of the case and then to commit the matter. After remitting the matter back to the trial Court by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the learned Magistrate once again took up the matter and passed the cognizable order on 11.10.2023, where the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 448, 454 r/w Section 149 of IPC, where he has categorically stated since no documents have been furnished with respect to the grievous hurt by using deadly weapons, Sections 395 and 397 of IPC are not attracted against all accused Nos.1 to 7, therefore, fresh cognizance order has been passed on 11.10.2023. It is further

¶25

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42589 CRL.P No. 9955 of 2024

¶26

alleged that subsequently learned Magistrate passed an order on 26.06.2024 to seek clarification as to whether the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings only against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 and no order has been passed as against accused No.3 and sought clarification from the learned counsel and the case was adjourned to 31.08.2024. Therefore, accused No.3/petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Sections 394 and 395 of IPC on par with the co-accused who got the relief in Crl.P. No. 3155/2020.

¶27

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP., for the State.

¶28

On hearing the arguments and on perusal of records which reveals that the police have registered the FIR initially for the offences under Sections 427, 143, 147, 149, 448 of IPC. On 8.9.2015, charge sheet came to be filed by adding Sections 395, 397 along with Section 454 of IPC. The same was challenged by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 (except this petitioner) in Criminal Petition No.3155/2020 which came to be allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.09.2020

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:42589 CRL.P No. 9955 of 2024

¶31

and remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration for application of mind as to ‘whether under Sections 395 and 397 are attracted or not?’

¶32

Subsequent to remanding the matter back to the trial Court by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the learned Magistrate once again took up the matter and after hearing the arguments of the learned APP as well as the learned counsel appearing for the accused Nos.1 to 7, took cognizance against all the accused i.e., accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 427, 448, 454 r/w Section 149 of IPC and the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate categorically states that Sections 395 and 397 of IPC are not attracted against all the accused persons, as there are no documents made available for causing grievous hurt by deadly weapons. The order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 11.10.2023 clearly states that fresh cognizance taken would attract against all the accused including this petitioner-accused No.3 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 427, 448, 454 r/w 149 of IPC, but not for Sections 395 and 397 of IPC either against this petitioner –accused No.3 or any other accused persons. Hence, the question of seeking clarification by the

¶33

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42589 CRL.P No. 9955 of 2024

¶34

learned Magistrate does not arise as the learned Magistrate has formed an opinion to take cognizance for all the accused persons.

¶35

6. When once the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court remanded

¶36

the matter back and directed to take cognizance of the offences after due application of mind and the learned Magistrate after re-considering all the materials on record and again took fresh cognizance of offences against the accused, there is no need for the petitioner-accused No.3 to file the petition again for seeking clarification, as the earlier order of taking cognizance under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC is already taken away by the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and subsequent order of cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate. The order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. P. 3155/2020 is binding and applicable to all the accused persons. After remanding the matter by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, learned Magistrate has again taken fresh cognizance against the accused for all the offences by excluding Sections 395 and 397 of IPC. However, the fresh cognizance dated 11.10.2023 has been challenged by all the seven accused persons in Crl. P. 219/2024 and after arguing

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:42589 CRL.P No. 9955 of 2024

¶39

the matter for sometime, it was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.02.2024. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance on 11.10.2023 has attained finality. Hence, the petitioner and other accused persons seeking clarification of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, would not arise.

¶40