1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.164/2021

BETWEEN:

J. PUTTASWAMY,

S/O JAVAREGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

OCC RETIRED AEE,

R/A: HOUSE NO.332,

YADAVAGIRI, GOKULAM,

MYSORE DISTRICT-570002.

… PETITIONER

[BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR H.B, ADVOCATE (THROUGH V.C.)]

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY TARIKERE POLICE,

REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU-5600001.

2.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,

TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION, TARIKERE,

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.

… RESPONDENTS

[BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2]

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN

C.C.NO.1/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AND PRL. JMFC AT TARIKERE, WHICH HAS ARISEN OUT OF

2

CRIME

NO.62/2012

OF

1^ST

RESPONDENT

POLICE

VIDE

ANNEXURE-A.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1/2013, pending

on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC at Tarikere,

which has arisen out of Crime No.62/2012 of respondent No.1

police vide Annexure-A for the offences punishable under

Sections 417, 420 and 468 of IPC.

2.

The

factual

matrix

of

the

case

is

that

the

respondents have initiated the proceedings against the petitioner

herein and the police have investigated the matter and filed the

charge-sheet. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has taken the

cognizance and issued the process and the same has been

questioned before this Court.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that this Court in Crl.P.No.5000/2020 dated

08.10.2020 available at page No.121 set aside the earlier order

of taking the cognizance and in paragraph No.6 of the order

3

noted that the learned Magistrate has once again passed an

order which reads as thus: “Perused the charge-sheet,

cognizance taken, register the case, issue summons to the

accused, returnable by 31.08.2019” and also noticed that below

the order there was an endorsement by the CAO. Hence, this

Court directed the learned Magistrate to apply his mind and pass

order regarding taking the cognizance. Thereafter, the learned

Magistrate vide his order dated 11.11.2020 passed the order

referring the records. While passing the order, an observation is

made that the petitioner herein earlier did not place the entire

material before the Hon'ble High Court and only placed the CIS

formate found in page No.21. It appears the order sheet dated

13.08.2019 found in page No.20 has not been produced before

the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Only the CIS formate

found in page No.21 has been produced before the Hon'ble High

Court of Karnataka by suppressing the order found in page

No.20.

The

Hon’ble

High

Court

of

Karnataka

in

Crl.P.No.5000/2020 has ordered to pass fresh orders as per the

directions made in Crl.P.No.6457/2013 dated 22.02.2019.

Referring the order of this Court and considering the material on

record, the learned Magistrate perused the charge-sheet and

4

found that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the

accused for the offences. The said order has been questioned

before this Court.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that inspite this Court has given the

direction to apply the judicious mind and pass an order, the

learned Magistrate has not passed the order applying his

judicious mind. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

ANOTHER v. PASTOR P. RAJU reported in (2006) 6 SCC 728

and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.9 and 10,

wherein the Apex Court discussed