IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated thi§ti1e 27'"day of October, 2009
Before
THE HON'B.-LE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAE "'
Criminal Petitimzs 4.173 / 2008 _c[w V5012'./":20:3}§_w; .
Between:
In Cri.P 4173/2008:
Smt Jaya K S W/0 Seethatrerna Gowda
50 yrs, Koornadka, Kemminje Village
now permanently r/a Kodimbalzz. '
Aithady House, Kodimbala Viilazge. _ 7
Puttur Taluk, D K
And:
E State 0f'1{:;_L1" r1:1tak'ae Lxgfi _ V' ' '
Kadaba Police S.1a1E0n V
C A B::11.k"" _____ H ;
-A A K2zdabéz°Vi]1age & Post
' _P-L![l;u;'..TaE.1;i<,,_D Diesmcl
V By its _C32.i_ef' Exs~:er;:.1'1ve {)i.'f'ieer
' (By Sr'iAG'Bhav:1.ni%'S.inéh, SPP for RE
Sri R B De'Shpa.Vnde; "Adv. for R2)
tn'~f:x-$155912/2003:
_M'.Saci e11anda S10 M Subiaa Ram
T {)2=yrs--,-- TR/21 'Muliya House'
'kg'
2 " . , Eetitioner
Respondents
Kutrupady village, Post Kaidziba
Puttur Taluk, D K District Petitioner
(By Sri Saratchandra Bijai. Adv.)
And:
1 State W by SPP
2 Chief Executive Oi’f’ie.eif
Kadaba C A Bank
Kadaba Village & Post ._
Puttur Taluk
(By Sri G Bhavani Singh, SPP for RI:
Sri R B Deshpande, Adv. for R2)
These Criminal Petitions aije filed und-erA.S;.48’2. _ of the ‘C:*v..PC.vv’i:)raying to
quash the proceedings in CC 3()7/20051:’ _be’£i’_ore;_theu.iMFC’,<Puttur.; set aside the
order dated by t.heiiiIvAddl. Sessions Judge, D K.
These Cf'i!ft}i'it:1_i Pe.t_itit-ms ém_iii'ri«g"on for Admission this day, the Court
made the following".-. " A V
"we ….. -'0RDER
These vt.W'o.petitior1s have been filed seeking for quashing the order
i'pmmdbymeemR;Pmmimtxxmwmmgmdmmtom:mmemeomm
"-«ijvdrited l.8.7.2GG?ii3'passed by the Sessions Judge, Bakshina Kannada in CLRP
istrar”oil’tfojoperative Societies,
Puttur Division has ortieiecl for l’i’esli”i»ar,j:niry’ the Karnataka Co-
1,
operative Societies Aet. mt’:-a that the E3 Vliliepoirtiiiwas not straight away
accepted but iiberiy waslreseriveti iti’.’_’i.”l’.i€?- fresh complaint. Further, after fresh
inquiry, separate “private compilatiia ‘came to be filed on the basis of which the
learned M.agistr=;1te ltt1s”t.z1l;e:t eogsiizance and issued process. This order is
ichallertged by the petit.io11ei’s on vaiious grounds.
VHeardthe,eo:tns=el_]re resentintt the arties.
Acieording’ the petitioners’ counsei, in the case of H V Suresh & Ors’
_ ‘T/s’..§’tate by Yésiswarttlzpura Police, Bangalore & Am’. -~ 2008 ( I ) KL] 680 it
‘=)<"'
6
the View to the c(ititra:.’y by the Patna High court is reversed. The court in no
uncertain terms in the tttbrcsaict case has indicated that the acceptanceof the
final Form does not debar the Magistiate from taking cognizance 0n'<t.1i'e.._b'a–s_is
of the materiat produced in a coniptaint proceeding.
In the case on hand. as noted, the B Report has been _iac.ce';:ate'ti which
has been conceded by the comptainant éibeity
complaint. More over, on the fresh conipiaint iiiiedthe
cognizance, as such question of i'c<)pening«i:t:ii'ie. comiplaint 'does and
question of taking cognizance twitgc the 'complainant
makes out a new case on which the Mz_tgi:;t:~2ite can_.pi*o(:ced.'t
In the cit':-unis:-an.-' _i;_<as'~_i"ight:y pointed out by the respondent's
counset, there iS=._110u3~;uCi:I=iiiitlgttiiity"–igdiiitllitted by the learned Magistrate in
taking cognizance on [tie basis of the private Compiaint filed having found that
i" there isvrniateriaiito proceet! against the petitioners It is for the petitioners to
;§,2,,;j<,,-
seeI<—fbr._tapprop'riate orders bctore the Magistrate' on the -material avaiiabie by
i"rnak.ing out Wi1£it'.i1_£i,§.~'i)CCt] aiiegetl does not constitute. an offence.
4%
A11
Wiih the above (_)h+;c:t'\»-".11i0ns, petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE