2020 Supreme(Kar) 1163
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.I. Arun, J.
M. Sampoorna - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka By Vishwanathapura Police - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 27 of 2017
Decided On : 12-06-2020
Uma Shankar M N, Advocate, K.S. Abhijith, Advocate, N. Devaraj, Advocate
The ingredients of any offence must be made out in the protest petition for the Magistrate to take cognizance.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Proceedings - Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 506(B) r/w 34 of IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the act of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of alleged offences against them in PCR No.58/2010, related to a private complaint lodged by the respondent for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 506(B) r/w 34 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the protest petition did not make a mention of the criminal intimidation held out as against the complainant by the petitioners, and the allegations did not make out an offence as against the accused petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners based on the protest petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 190 of Cr.P.C. and previous court decisions to determine that the ingredients of any offence must be made out in the protest petition for the Magistrate to take cognizance.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings in PCR No.58/2010 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in taking cognizance of the offences insofar as it relates to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
M I Arun, J. - This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) praying to quash the proceedings in PCR No.58/2010 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli insofar as it relates to the petitioners on a private complaint lodged by respondent No.2 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 506(B) r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. None appears for respondent No.2. It is noticed from the order sheet that on earlier occasion also respondent No.2 had remained absent.
3. The complainant in PCR No.58/2010 has filed the complaint alleging that she is the owner of the properties bearing Survey Nos.89/1 and 89/2 measuring 4 acres 8 guntas situated at Solur village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk and accused nos.1 to 3 in PCR No.58/2010 are guilty of impersonation and forgery by which they have created false documents and have sold the same in favour of accused nos.4 & 5 therein i.e. the petitioners herein. It is further alleged in the said complaint that when the complainant went near the properties all the accused including accused nos.4 & 5 threatened the complainant and thereby all of them including the petitioners herein are guilty of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 of IPC.
4. Accordingly, on the above mentioned grounds, the complainant filed PCR No.58/2010 before the JMFC, Devanahalli, who upon receipt of the complaint referred the matter for investigation to the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police, after due investigation, filed a 'B' report stating that the dispute is essentially of civil in nature and the accused are not guilty of committing the said offences. Upon receipt of 'B' report, the learned Magistrate permitted the complainant to file objections to 'B' report. After objections or protest petition was filed, the learned Magistrate did not accept the 'B' report but took cognizance of the offence and posted the case for sworn statement and thereafter recorded the sworn statement.
5. The petitioners herein have challenged the act of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the alleged offences against them in PCR No.58/2010.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a civil dispute between the complainant and the accused in respect of the said properties purchased by the petitioners herein who are accused nos.4 and 5 in PCR No.58/2010. The complainant with a view to harass the petitioners and make illegal gain at the cost of the petitioners has filed PCR No.58/2010 against the accused including the petitioners herein. It is further submitted that the petitioners herein have purchased the said properties from several persons, including accused nos.1 to 3 in PCR No.58/2010. It is further submitted that the petitioners are innocent buyers for valuable consideration.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the allegations made against them in the protest petition does not constitute any offence under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 468, 474 and 506(B) read with Section 34 of IPC or any other offences and the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance against them.
8. The complainant claiming to be the owner of the aforementioned properties alleging that accused nos.1 to 3 have impersonated and forged documents to have the properties in the name of accused no.1 and further alleging that they have sold the said properties illegally to accused nos.4 and 5 has filed the above case. She has further alleged that when she went near the properties all the accused including accused nos.4 and 5 threatened her of dire consequences. Thus, the allegation insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein is confined to one that of criminal intimidation. It does not pertain to forgery or impersonation. After filing of the complaint before the learned M