IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2124 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. KARUNA KARAN D S/O LATE. DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.55, 13TH MAIN JC NAGARA, KURUBARAHALLI BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU-560086.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS STATION OFFICER CHAMARAJAPET POLICE STATION Digitally signed by REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SANJEEVINI J OFFICE AT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KARISHETTY BENGALURU-560001.

Location: High Court of Karnataka

2. SRI.M.S UMESH S/O M.SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O ASSISTANT ENGINEER BBMP, CIVIL DEPARTMENT CHAMARAJPETE SUB-DIVISION JC ROAD, BENGALURU-560002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.17925/2019 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.165/2017, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 336 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE 24^th ACMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - accused No.4 is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.17925 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 336 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri. G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Santosh Kumar M.B., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Fact, in brief, germane are as follows:

3.1. A crime in Crime No.0165 of 2017 comes to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 336 read with Section 34 of the IPC against three accused persons. The police after investigation file a charge sheet before the concerned Court. In the charge sheet the petitioner is added as accused No.4. On the basis of the charge sheet the concerned Court takes cognizance of the aforesaid offences only against the accused No.2 and the petitioner – accused No.4 and summons is issued to the two accused persons. However, accused Nos.1 and 3 are dropped from the charge sheet. Subsequently, a case comes to be registered before the concerned Court in C.C.No.17925 of 2019. The petitioner is now knocking at the doors of this Court challenging the said proceedings before the concerned Court.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of the concerned Court taking cognizance of the offences and issuing summons to the petitioner suffers from blatant non-application of mind and is bereft of any reasons. The ingredients of the aforesaid offences have not been made out in the case at hand. He would contend that if the order of cognizance suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, the only consequence would be obliteration of the said order including the crime so registered as the cognizance is taken upon the charge sheet or final report which is filed after the registration of the crime.

5. The learned Counsels appearing for the respondents would in unison submit that the order of taking cognizance and issuing summons upon a final report need not bear application of mind as it would become a matter of trial, where the petitioner would get all opportunity of defence. On this score they would seek dismissal of the petition and continuation of trial against the petitioner.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The only issue that is projected before this Court lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the order of cognizance suffers from want of application of mind.

8. Since the entire issue emanates from the order taking cognizance, I dee