Back
- 1 -
CRL.P No. 101091 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101091 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1.
SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O. PANDURANGA KULKARNI,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MANSUR MALMADDI, DHARWAD.
2.
SHRI. HANAMANTH S/O TAMMAJI KOTABAGI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 2ND CROSS, MALMADDI, DHARWAD.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL AND
SRI. ROHIT S. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY VIDYAGIRI
POLICE STATION, DHARWAD.
R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
2.
SHRI. SURESH S/O. BASAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 5TH CROSS, U.B. HILL, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SR
NO.42/2019 WHICH IS REGISTERED AS CC NO.7/2023 ON THE
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.06.17
10:49:13 -0700
- 2 -
CRL.P No. 101091 of 2023
FILE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND C.J.M.,
DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
504, 420 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Heard Sri Rohit S.Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioners,
Smt.Girija
S.Hiremath,
learned
High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and
Sri R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Perused the records.
Upon the complaint lodged by contesting
respondent,
police
registered
a
case
in
Crime
No.15/2019
on
03.02.2019
for
the
offences
punishable U/sec.506, 504, 420, 323 r/w Section 34
IPC against the petitioners herein.
3.
Police after thorough investigation filed a
‘B’ summary report. The complainant challenged the
same by filing a protest petition. Learned trial Judge
after
recording
the
sworn statement
and
after
considering the material on record, rejected the ‘B’
- 3 -
final report and took cognizance of the offence
U/sec.420 and 504 IPC against the petitioners herein
and issued the process by order dated 30.12.2022.
The veracity of the said order is under question.
4.
The
prime
contention
of
the
learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Magistrate
did not reject the ‘B’ summary report and taking the
cognizance without rejecting the ‘B’ summary report,
has
vitiated
the
order
taking
cognizance
and
therefore, sought for allowing the petition.
5.
In support of his contentions, he relied on
the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal
Petition No.101214/2016 dated 24.05.2022. This
Court in the said order, following the judgment of
co-ordinate bench of this Court in Dr.Ravikumar
V/s Mrs.K.M.C. Vasanath and another, reported
in 2018(2) KLJ 140 has set aside the order taking
cognizance
where
the
trial
Magistrate
has
not
rejected the ‘B’ summary report.
- 4 -
6.
The
principles
of
law
enunciated
in
Criminal
Petition
No.101214/2016
is
squarely
applicable to the case on hand as the Magistrate has
not rejected the ‘B’ summary report and proceeded
to take cognizance. Accordingly, the impugned order
needs to be set aside.
7.
Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
30.12.2022 is hereby set aside. Matter is
remitted to the learned trial Magistrate to
consider the question of taking cognizance
or otherwise against the petitioners in
accordance with law keeping in view the
principles
stated
in
the
aforesaid
judgments
of
Doodharam
and
Dr.Ravikumar.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
