Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 115 (KAR)

HANUMANTAPPA @ MUTTU v. BASAMMA @ RANJEETA KOMO HANUMANTAPPA @ MUTTU KARADAGI

2019-01-09

H.P.SANDESH

body2019
JUDGMENT H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. I have heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and also counsel for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein has field a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC and thereafter, the sworn statement was recorded and the same is numbered and CC No.298/2017 and process has been issued against these petitioners. 3. The main contention of the petitioners is that the Court below has committed an error in registering the case against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC and there is no complaint in the eye of law since the complainant has not filed singed complaint which has been filed in writing and it should be signed by the complainant. 4. It is further contended that the respondent on her own left the house of the petitioners inspite of legal notice got issued, not responded. Only in order to harass and implicate the petitioners, the present complaint was filed. The Court below was committed an error in recording the sworn statement and taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint which is not at all a complaint in the eye of law and hence, very initiation of proceedings against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 5. The counsel appearing for the petitioners in his arguments reiterated the grounds urged in the petition. Further he brought to my notice the copy of the complaint which is annexure as Annexure-B and contends that there is no any signature. However, the Court below has recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued the process, when the complaint has not been signed and the same is not in the eye of law to take any cognizance and hence, liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent in his arguments contends that by oversight, the complaint was not signed. However, the Court below has not acted upon only on the complaint and the complainant has been examined before the Court below after recording the sworn statement and considering the materials on record proceeded to issue process and hence, the petitioners cannot find fault with the Court in issuing the process against the petitioners. However, the Court below has not acted upon only on the complaint and the complainant has been examined before the Court below after recording the sworn statement and considering the materials on record proceeded to issue process and hence, the petitioners cannot find fault with the Court in issuing the process against the petitioners. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in between Indra Kumar Patodia and Another Vs. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. And Others, (2012) 13 SCC 1 and he brought to my notice relevant discussion made in the judgment and referring the relevant portion he drawn the attention of this Court to para 25 of the judgment and the Apex Court in the said para made an observation that taking note of various provisions of the Act and the Code, which have adverted, they hold that complaint under Section 138 of the Act without signature is maintainable when such complaint is verified by the complainant and the process is issued by the Magistrate after due verification. The prosecution of such complaint is maintainable. Hence, prayed this Court rejected the petition. 7. Having heard the petitioners' counsel and also respondent's counsel, the point arise before this Court is whether this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 8. The main contention of the petitioners is that the complaint is not signed and no dispute with regard to the fact that the complaint is not signed and also no dispute with regard to the fact that sworn statement of the complaint is recorded by the Magistrate. 9. On perusal of the order sheet, which is produced along with this petition shows that the Magistrate while issuing the process against the petitioners passed a detailed order that in support of her complaint the complainant has produced her sworn statement and sworn statement is recorded in support of the case of the complainant and further observed that perused the sworn statement of PWs.1 and 2 and perused the materials placed on record and further observed that at the stage of issuance of process, the materials placed on record would prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offence and complainant had made out sufficient means to take cognizance to proceed against the accused persons. Further, observed that material placed on records is remained unrebutted and hence, proceeded to pass the order by exercising powers under Sections 202 and 204 of Cr.P.C., in issuance of process. 10. It is rightly pointed out by the respondent's counsel that not only on the complaint averment, the Magistrate has issued the process and also recorded the sworn statement and considered the materials on record and also passed the detailed order. While issuing process also, the question is whether the Magistrate has applied his judicial mind to issue the process and on perusal of the order also detailed order is passed by the Magistrate by applying the judicial mind. 11. The main contention of the petitioner is that the complaint is not signed and the Apex Court in detail discussed with regard to the effect of non signing of the complaint and adverting to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., and also Section 142 of the N.I.Act, regarding taking cognizance of any offence in respect of Section 138, it is categorically held that if the sworn statement is recorded and the same has been considered and the same is on oath and mere filing of complaint which is not signed is not the only material to be considered and when the Court recorded the statement of the complainant by oath and same has to be taken note of it, and in the present case on hand also, the Court below not only considered the complaint averments and also considered the sworn statement of the complainant and also other witness who has been examined before the Magistrate and taken the cognizance. I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioners' counsel and judgment referred by respondent's counsel is aptly applicable to the case on hand and the very judgment is the answer to the grounds urged by the petitioners with regard to non-signing of the complaint. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed.