Dismissed¶37

Sri.Chetan Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2025CRL.P/13116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR / B report rejection - protest petition - cognizance and summons under Sections 143, 147, 435, 506, 504, 114 r/w 149 IPC - Section 482 Cr.P.C / Section 528 BNSS - JMFC Mandya, C.C.No.1040/2023, Crime No.322/2015 (FIR No.466/2015) - order dated 22.08.2023 upheld - criminal petition dismissed - all contentions before trial Court kept open - Karnataka High Court, 03.02.2025, S.R. Krishna Kumar J.

What did the court decide?

Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, including the 'B' Report and the impugned order, the learned Magistrate came to the correct conclusion that the 'B' Report was incorrect and the same required to be set aside by issuing summons to the petitioners. ¶34

Sri.Chetan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22.08.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya, in Crime No.322/2015 / C.C.No.1040/2023, rejecting the 'B' Report and taking cognizance / directing issuance of summons against the petitioners for offences under Sections 143, 147, 435, 506, 504, 114 r/w 149 IPC, warrants being quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS).

¶24

Court's answer

¶34

Ratio / Principle

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C [Section 528 of BNNS]; the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

¶37

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioners to put forth all contentions before the trial Court; all contentions on all aspects of the matter were kept open and no opinion was expressed on them.obiter¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (u/s 482 Cr.P.C. / s.528 BNSS) dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (S.R. Krishna Kumar J., single Judge, order dated 03.02.2025). The petitioners challenged the order dated 22.08.2023 of the JMFC, Mandya, in Crime No.322/2015 [FIR No.466/2015], pending in C.C.No.1040/2023, whereby the trial Court, acting on the complainant's protest petition, rejected the police 'B' Report and issued summons to the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 143, 147, 149, 435, 114 of IPC. On re-appreciation of the entire record, the High Court held that the learned Magistrate came to the correct conclusion that the 'B' Report was incorrect and that issuance of summons was required; no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranted interference. Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to urge all contentions before the trial Court, with all contentions kept open and no opinion expressed thereon.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:4852 CRL.P No. 13116 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13116 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.CHETAN KUMAR S/O PASHUPATI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO 1910, 4TH CROSS SHUBASHNAGAR MANDYA 570401

¶8

SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O PASHUPATHI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO 1910, 4TH CROSS SHUBASHNAGAR MANDYA 570401

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

DR H KRISHNA S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO 1132, 3RD CROSS ASHOKNAGAR

¶11

MANDYA 571401

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAJWAL K. ARADYA, ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION MANDYA 571401

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:4852 CRL.P No. 13116 of 2024

¶19

REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560001

¶20

SRI P BABU

¶21

S/O LATE C PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SRINIVASAPURA VILLGE UMMADIHALLI DAKHLE KASABAHOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571401

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL SPP FOR R1)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2023 IN CRIME NO.322/2015 AND C.C.NO.1040/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT MANDYA REJECTING THE B REPORT AND CONSEQUENTLY TAKING COGNIZANCE IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 435, 506, 504, 114 R/W 149 OF IPC PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 in Crime No.322/2015 [FIR No.466/2015], which is pending in C.C.No.1040/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya [for short, ' the trial Court' ] for the offences

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:4852 CRL.P No. 13116 of 2024

¶30

punishable under Sections 506, 504, 143, 147, 149, 435, 114 of IPC.

¶31

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶32

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the respondent No.2 - complainant filing a complaint against the petitioner on 16.07.2015, the respondent No.1 filed a final 'B' Report, which was called in question by the respondent No.2- complainant before the learned Magistrate by filing a protest petition. By the impugned order, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the 'B' report filed by the respondent No.1 was incorrect and consequently, proceeded to direct issuance of summons to the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶33

Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and re-

¶34

consideration of the entire material on record, including the 'B' Report and the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate came to the correct conclusion that the 'B' Report was incorrect and same requires to be set aside by issuing summons to the petitioners. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:4852 CRL.P No. 13116 of 2024

¶37

the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C [Section 528 of BNNS]. I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶38

Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to put forth all contentions before the trial Court.

¶39

All contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶40

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶41

Sri.Chetan Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Chetan Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Athaulla Jokatte Vs the State of Karnataka

Sachin B R Vs the State of Karnataka

Ibbi @ Ibrahim Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahesh Vs State by

Mavalli Shankar Vs State of Karnataka

Kademada a Poovaiah Vs the State of Karnataka