Allowed¶58

Niranjanasha and Ors. v. Anjuman E Islam Committee and Anr.

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2025CRL.P/200112/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench; CRL.P No. 200112 of 2025; Justice V. Srishananda; decision dated 06.06.2025; quashing of cognizance order dated 08.10.2024 in P.C. No.3/2020 (C.C. No.4318/2024, old C.C. No.155/2024) of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal; protest petition; 'B' final report; cognizance without rejecting 'B' report impermissible; offences under Sections 447 and 379 r/w 149 IPC; Sections 200 and 156(3) Cr.P.C.; Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS; Niranjanasha and others v. Anjuman-E-Islam Committee and State of Karnataka; matter remanded to Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

The order taking cognizance dated 08.10.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. ¶58

Niranjanasha and Ors. Vs Anjuman E Islam Committee and Anr. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2894 CRL.P No. 200112 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200112/2025

¶9

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

NIRANJANASHA

¶12

S/O GAIBUSAB MAKANADAR, AGED:40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JANNAT MAKAN TALIKOTI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR – 586 214.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

GULABASHA

¶15

S/O KALANDARASHA MAKANADAR, AGED:35 YEARS, OCC: SHAPPAL SHOP BUSINESS, R/O. JANNAT MAKAN TALIKOTI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR–586 214.

¶16

HAIDARASHA S/O HUSENASHA MAKANADAR, AGED:67 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR, R/O. JANNAT MAKAN TALIKOTI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR–586 214.

¶17

MUBAJUDDIN S/O KHAJESHA MAKANADAR, AGED:67 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR, R/O. JANNAT MAKAN TALIKOTI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 214

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2894 CRL.P No. 200112 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

IMAMASHA S/O KALANDARASHA MAKANDAR, AGED:45 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR, R/O. JANNAT MAKAN TALIKOTI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 214

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI SANTOSH KUMAR B. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

ANJUMAN- E- ISLAM COMMITTEE, (REGISTERED WAKF INSTITUTION), TALIKOTI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 214, REP BY MURTUZA S/O KHAJAHUSAIN KEMBAVI, AGED:76 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE & PRESIDENT ANJUMAN-E-ISLAM COMMITTEE, TALIKOTI, TALUK TALIKOTI DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR – 586214

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TALIKOTI POLICE STATION, DIST. VIJAYAPUR – 586 214, REP. BY ADDL. SPP, KALABURAGI-585 107.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R2)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO: A) QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE CR.P.C., IN P.C NO.3/2020 (C.C NO.4318/2024 OLD C.C NO.155/2024) ON THE FILE OF THE Court OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2894 CRL.P No. 200112 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

JMFC AT MUDDEBIHAL IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS HEREIN; AND B) CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2024 PASSED IN P.C NO.3/2020 (C.C NO.4318/2024/ OLD C.C NO.z55/2024) PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDDEBIHAL, FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 447 AND 379 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS HEREIN.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA)

¶35

Heard learned counsel Sri Santosh Kumar B.

¶36

Biradar for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri R.S. Lagali for respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

¶37

This petition is filed under Section 582 of BNSS by the accused persons seeking to quash the private complaint filed by respondent No.1 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., in P.C. No.3/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Muddebihal in C.C. No.4318/2024.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2894 CRL.P No. 200112 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary

¶42

for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶43

3.1 A private complaint came to be filed by the first respondent against the petitioners, which was referred to Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for investigation. Jurisdictional Police after thorough investigation filed ‘B’ final report. Thereafter, notice of the ‘B’ final report was issued to the de-facto complainant, who filed the protest petition.

¶44

3.2 Learned Trial Magistrate entertained the protest petition, without rejecting the ‘B’ final report, took cognizance of the offence based on the sworn statement and other materials placed by the de-facto complainant. The said order is under challenge.

¶45

3.3 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without rejecting the ‘B’ final report taking cognizance has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for setting aside the said order.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2894 CRL.P No. 200112 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Per contra, learned counsel Sri R.S. Lagali representing the de-facto complainant would submit that it is only a technical error and therefore, passing the order of taking cognizance is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶49

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record it is noticed that without rejecting ‘B’ report cognizance of offence has been taken by the learned Magistrate. It is settled principle of law and requires no emphasis that before proceeding with the case based on the protest petition, it is incumbent on the learned Trial Magistrate to reject the ‘B’ final report and then proceed with the case.

¶50