IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6625 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI. G KUBERAPPA S/O. THIMMAPPA AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT. NO.404/108, S.S HOSPITAL ROAD, JAYANAGAR B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE – 577 004.

EARLIER WORKING AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., DCC BANK LIMITED BUILDING, DC OFFICE CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

Digitally signed by PETITIONER IS RETIRED PAVITHRA B FROM GOVERNMENT SERVICE ON 30.06.2018 Location:

…PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SR.COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI.NAGHARISH G.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY THE ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CIRCLE-2(1), 2^ND FLOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), 1^ST FLOOR, PARK VIEW BUILDING, NO.284/1, 4^TH MAIN, PJ EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V.RAVIRAJ AND SRI.M.DILIP, ADVOCATES)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.PC THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.349/2016 TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE ACCUSED PERSON WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

“a. Call for records in CC No.349/2016, in the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Davanagere.

b. Quash the order dated 20.02.2016 passed by II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Davanagere in CC.NO.349/2016 taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused person without application of mind.

c. Pass such other suitable order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.“

2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that pursuant to the private complaint filed by the respondent - Revenue in CC.No.349/2016 against the petitioner/sole accused the trial Court passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2016 taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner by holding as under:

“Perused the complainant and its enclosures.

Cognizance is taken for the offences alleged in the complaint.

On perusal, it reveals that, the complaint has been filed on official capacity. Thus, recording of sworn statement of the complainant is dispensed with. There are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the offences alleged. Hence, offices to register a criminal case against the accused for the offences alleged and issue summons to the accused.

Returnable by 26.05.2016.”

3. A perusal of the impugned order taking cognizance would clearly indicate that the same is a cryptic, laconic and non-speaking and unreasoned order without application of mind and without assigning reasons as to why the trial Court was taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner.

4. Under identical circumstances, in the case of M/S. JM LABORATORIES AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER, [2025 INSC 127], the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

”5. Several submissions have been made on behalf of the appellants. It is contended by the appellants that there are violations of various statutory provisions. It is also contended that the case is barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in Section 468 (2) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the Analytical Report in respect of which the violation is alleged is dated 15th December 2018 whereas the complaint is filed in May 2023. It is submitted that it is filed beyond a period of three years and hence, the same would not be tenable. It is also submitted that there is also non-compliance of the provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

6. However, we do not find it necessary to consider the submissions made by the appellants on various grounds inasmuch as the present appeal is liable to be allowed on the short ground that the learned Magistrate has issued the