IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.201171/2019

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED TAQIUDDIN

S/O LATE HASSAN MOHIUDDIN

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

OCC: NIL

R/O GHALIB NAGAR

TQ: & DIST. RAICHUR-584101.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B YADAV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH WEST POLICE STATION

RAICHUR, DISTRICT RAICHUR

REPRESENTED BY ADDL.

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI-585102.

2. HAMID PASHA

S/O LATE LALE SAB (KOWTAL)

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

OCC: KSRTC EMPLOYEE

2

R/O H.NO. 12-12-67

ARAB MOHALLA

TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI GURURAJ V HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1

SRI SHIVANAND V PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS COURT TO QUASH THE PRIVATE

COMPLAINT NO.50/2019 AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED

BY THE 4TH ADDL. JMFC, RAICHUR DISTRICT DATED

01.06.2019

BY

REFFERING

THE

MATTER

UNDER

SEC.156(3) OF CR.P.C. FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE

AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.149, 420, 468 AND

471 OF IPC AND FURTHER QUASH THE FIR NO.210/2019

IN CR.NO.31/2019 OF RAICHUR WEST POLICE STATION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for

the State and the learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent.

3

2.

The present petition is filed under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order

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

offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471

of IPC in PCR No.50/2019.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the learned Magistrate without applying judicious

mind, mechanically, has referred the matter under Section

156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional police for the

investigation and to submit the report. He further submits

that the order is passed on the private complaint itself.

Apart from that no separate affidavit has been filed in

compliance of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER

vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS case

reported in AIR 2015 SC 1758 and also the counsel

submits that the matter is in civil in nature and the order

passed by the Trial Court in referring the private complaint

under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C is not sustainable in law.

Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

4

4.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

the second respondent submits that in paragraph 5, the

specific averment is made that when the complainant has

approached the concerned police, they do no take any

action. Hence, the complaint is filed.

5.

There is force in the contention of the counsel

for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate while

referring the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. not

applied his mind to see whether it is a fit case to refer the

matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and not formed any

opinion. On perusal of the endorsement on the private

complaint itself it is mentioned that acting under Section

156(3) of Cr.P.C, the matter is referred and not applied his

mind to see whether it is a fit case to refer the complaint

to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. No doubt,

while referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.,

the Court need not take cognizance but mechanically

referred the same to the police and not formed any opinion

whether the matter requires to be investigated by the

5

investigating officer. Apart from that list of documents is

filed along with the private complaint which does not

disclose any representation given to the Superintendent of

Police or to the higher officer of the police department in

compliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C when the complaint

was refused. When such being the factual aspects, the

order p