1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3923/2020

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT. GAYATHRI D.V.,

W/O L.P. RANGANATHA,

AGED 60 YEARS,

R/AT SRIRANGA, 3^RD CROSS,

GANAPATHI LAYOUT, VIDYANAGAR,

SHIVAMOGGA – 577 203.

2.

SRI M. SEETHARAM,

S/O M. KRISHNAMURTHY,

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

R/AT KAMAASHILE VILLAGE,

KUNDAPURA TALUK,

UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 229.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SADASHIVAIAH K.G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BNY KOTE POLICE STATION,

SHIVAMOGGA – 577 203.

2.

G.S. KRISHNAMURTHY,

S/O SANNERAIAH,

AGED 53 YEARS,

SUPERINTENDENT,

SAHYADRI SCIENCE COLLEGE,

SHIVAMOGGA – 577 203.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R-1,

SRI P.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

Cr.P.C.

PRAYING

TO

QUASH

THE

PROCEEDIGNS

IN

PCR

No.26/2014 AND IN CR.NO.168/2015 DATED 07.09.2015 PENDING

ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

CJM, SHIVAMOGGA.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2.

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

praying this Court to quash the proceedings in P.C.R.No.26/2014

in respect of Crime No.168/2015 for the offences punishable

under Sections 176, 177, 198, 199, 415, 465, 468, 471, 474

read with Section 34 of IPC.

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent

No.2 herein filed the complaint against the petitioners and the

same is numbered as P.C.R.No.26/2014. The learned Magistrate

referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for

investigation.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while

3

referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and has

erroneous referred the matter. The learned counsel would

submit that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER v. STATE

OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC

287, filing of affidavit is necessary in support of the complaint.

Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

5.

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2

would submit that the learned Magistrate having perused the

complaint averments and the documents, formed an opinion that

it is proper to refer the matter for investigation. Hence, the

learned Magistrate has applied his judicious mind and passed the

order.

6.

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel

for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.2

and on perusal of the order impugned referring the matter under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate while passing

the order, perused the complaint and also the documents

produced along with the complaint. The learned Magistrate

4

having perused the allegations made in the complaint and the

documents produced, formed an opinion that it is proper to refer

the matter for investigation. The learned Magistrate has applied

his judicious mind before referring the matter under Section

156(3) of Cr.P.C. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is

pre-cognizance order and when the learned Magistrate has

applied his judicious mind while referring the matter under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot find fault with the

same.

7.

With regard to the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioners in the judgment in the case of Priyanka

Srivastava (supra), this Court has to look into the contents of

the complaint and also each facts of the case. In the said case,

when the bank initiated the proceedings against the complainant

under law to recourse to recovery of mone