Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 402 (KAR)

RAMACHANDRA GUDI v. ANANTHA RAMACHARYA GUDI

2001-05-29

MOHAMED ANWAR

body2001
( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) BY this petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. , the two petitioners herein have prayed that the order dated 31-8-2000 of the learned Magistrate made in Cr. Misc. No. 65/2000 on his file directing issuance of process, may be quashed. A few material facts leading to this petition may be stated as under : A private complaint under S. 200, Cr. P. C. , alleging commission of offences under Ss. 143, 147, 323, 448, 504 and 506 read with S. 149 of I. P. C. was lodged before the learned Magistrate by one Bindu Madhav against petitioner No. 1-Ramachandra Gudi herein and four others. That complaint was taken on the file of the learned Magistrate viz. , JMFC, Haveri in P. C. R. No. 35/97. Petitioner No. 2 was the complainant's witness therein. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the said offences proceeded to record the sworn statement of petitioner No. 2 and other witnesses of the complainant. Thereafter, the process against petitioner No. 1 and other accused in the said P. C. R, No. 35/ 97 was stated to have been issued. Aggrieved by the initiation of the said criminal proceeding in the said P. C. R. No. 35/97, the accused in P. C. R. No. 35/97 had filed a petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. before this Court in Crl. P. No. 2000/1999 seeking quashment of the said criminal proceeding against them. This Court, on consideration of the material obtainable on record in that proceeding, passed its order dated 6th June, 2000 allowing the said petition and quashing the said criminal proceedings in P. C. R. No. 35/ 97 against the accused therein. ( 3 ) AFTER the said order dated 6th June, 2000 was passed by this Court disposing of the said Crl. P. No. 2000/1999, respondent herein who is a practicing Advocate of Haveri Bar Association made his so-called complaint under S. 340 read with S. 195 (1) (b) (i) of Cr. P. C. before the learned Magistrate in the said Cr. Misc. No. 65/2000 against petitioner No. 1 herein, alleging commission of the offence under S. 193, I. P. C. and requesting that they may be punished for the said offence. P. C. before the learned Magistrate in the said Cr. Misc. No. 65/2000 against petitioner No. 1 herein, alleging commission of the offence under S. 193, I. P. C. and requesting that they may be punished for the said offence. The said complaint was made on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 had given a false statement in the said P. C. R. No. 35/97. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners rightly argued that once the criminal proceeding in the said P. C. R. No. 35/97 against respondent, who is the complainant in the said Cr. Misc. No. 65/2000 and others had been quashed as illegal by this Court by its order dated 6th June, 2000 made in Crl. P. No. 2000/1999, then for all legal purposes the proceeding in P. C. R. No. 35/97 stands wiped out in the eye of law. Therefore, respondent cannot indulge in the luxury of relying on that illegal proceeding invoking the provision of S. 340 read with S. 195 (1) (b) (i) of Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel representing respondent proposing to draw support from the observation of Supreme Court in K. T. M. S. Mohd v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1831 : (1992 Cri LJ 2781) sought to support the impugned order of the Court below. The observation of Supreme Court made in K. T. M. S. Mohd and another v. Union of India Is to the effect that S. 340 of Cr. P. C. confers"an inherent power on a Court to make a complaint in respect of an offence committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, if that Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence referred to in Cl. (b) of sub-section (1) of S. 195 and authorises such Court to hold preliminary enquiry as it thinks necessary and then make a complaint thereof in writing after recording a finding to that effect as contemplated under sub-section (1) of S. 340. " ( 6 ) THERE cannot be any dispute about the above proposition of law. (b) of sub-section (1) of S. 195 and authorises such Court to hold preliminary enquiry as it thinks necessary and then make a complaint thereof in writing after recording a finding to that effect as contemplated under sub-section (1) of S. 340. " ( 6 ) THERE cannot be any dispute about the above proposition of law. But evidently, the same is inapplicable to the case in hand inasmuch as the said criminal proceeding in the said P. C. R. No. 35/97 had been quashed by this Court as illegal proceeding. As a result, that proceeding does not have any existence in the eye of law. In that view of the matter, the so-called complaint of respondent made before the learned Magistrate in Cr. Misc. No. 65/2000 was wholly a vexatious complaint, which was highly unwarranted on his part in the circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) HENCE, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31-8-2000 of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the further proceeding in Cr. Misc. No. 65/2000 on his file is quashed as illegal and void proceeding. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .