IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102355/2019

BETWEEN:

1 .

SRI. HANAMANT S/O. RUDRAPPA NIRANI,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,

CHANNAMMA NAGAR, MUDHOL,

BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA.

2 .

SRI. MURAGESH S/O. RUDRAPPA NIRANI,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,

CHANNAMMA NAGAR,

MUDHOL, BAGALKOT,

KARNATAKA.

3 .

SRI. SANGAMESH RUDRAPPA NIRANI,

AGE: ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

CHANNAMMA NAGAR, MUDHOL,

BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.: S.H.MITTALKOD, ADV.)

AND

1 .

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY PSI MUDHOL POLICE STATION

BAGALKOT.

BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH.

2

2 .

SHRI. DUNDAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA LAKKAM,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRESIDENT

SHRI. KALMESHWAR CHARITABLE

TRUST (R) K.R.LAKKAM,

R/O: VIDYASAMSTHE,

MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1

SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.

SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF ISSUANCE OF PROCESS

DATED

04.12.2018

AND

PROCEEDINGS

AGAINST

THE

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2, 9 AND 10 IN C.C.NO.1512/2018

PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC

COURT, MUDHOL, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 109, 143, 147,

427, 447, 504 & 506 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,

THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned HCGP for respondent-State as well as the

learned

counsel

appearing

for

respondent

No.2/complainant.

2.

On a complaint lodged by respondent

No.2 herein, a case was registered in Crime

No.12/2015 of Mudhol Police Station for offence

3

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 447,

109, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC. On completion

of investigation, the jurisdictional Police filed a ‘B’

report. On issuance of notice to the complainant,

protest petition came to be filed and thereafter,

the complainant as well as two witnesses were

examined. The learned Magistrate vide order

dated 04.12.2018, issued summons to accused

No.1 to 10, which is under challenge in this

petition.

3.

This petition is filed by accused No.2, 9

and 10 respectively to quash the order of issuance

of process dated 04.12.2018 and the proceedings

initiated

against

the

petitioners

in

C.C.

No.1512/2018, pending before the Court below.

4.

The

main

contention

raised

by

the

learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the

protest petition ought to have been filed by the

complainant, whereas, in the present case the

4

same was filed by the learned counsel for the

complainant

and

therefore,

subsequent

registration of the case and issuance of notice to

the

accused

persons

vitiates

the

entire

proceedings. It is also contended that the entire

complaint does not prima facie constitutes any

offence as alleged and therefore, continuance of

proceedings against the accused is an abuse of

process of law.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioners

has placed reliance on an unreported decision of

this

court

in

Crl.P.101817/2014

and

other

connected matters disposed of on 20.04.2017.

Para

No.17

of

the

said

order

is

extracted

hereunder :

“Looking to the contents of this protest

application, it shows that it is not by the

complainant

himself

but

by

his

Advocate, same is not in accordance

with law. When that is so the question

5

is whether this protest memo is in the

form of the complaint and whether it is

complaint as defined under Section 2(d)

of the Cr.P.C. Looking to the materials

and the contents of the protest petition

it is not in the form of complaint, when

that is so, the question of learned

Magistrate

looking

into

the

protest

application and holding that there is

sufficient

material

and

taking

cognizance

is

patently

illegal

and

against provisions