Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 451 (KAR)

Umakanth Alva v. State Of Karnataka

2021-03-19

H.P.SANDESH

body2021
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to direct the Hon’ble X ACMM, Bengaluru to close Crime No.284/2017 registered by the Indira Nagar Police, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC pending on the file of X ACMM Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru by accepting the ‘B’ report filed by respondent No.1 in the interest of justice. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner and in pursuance of the said complaint, the police have investigated the matter and filed the ‘B’ report and the same is not accepted. Hence, the petitioner is seeking the relief of writ of mandamus directing the X ACMM, Bengaluru to close Crime No.284/2017. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that after the investigation, ‘B’ report is filed. The order sheet which has been produced before the Court discloses that ‘B’ final report was filed. The learned Magistrate has issued notice against the complainant and date was fixed on 04.01.2021. Again on 04.01.2021, the notice was not served. and date is fixed as 04.05.2021. When the ‘B’ report is filed before the Trial Court, the learned Magistrate has to issue notice against the complainant and the records reveals that no notice is served on the complainant. Hence, the date is fixed on 04.05.2021. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is pressing for a direction to the learned Magistrate to close the case. The same is not permissible under law. Once the ‘B’ report is filed, the learned Magistrate should give notice to the complainant and accordingly the learned Magistrate has proceeded to issue notice against the complainant. An opportunity has to be given to the complainant by giving notice whether she has got to say anything about the ‘B’ report or she intends to file any protest petition. The learned Magistrate without giving the notice and without giving an opportunity to the complainant cannot close the complaint as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to direct the learned Magistrate to pass an order for closure of the case against the procedure established under the law. 5. The learned Magistrate without giving the notice and without giving an opportunity to the complainant cannot close the complaint as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to direct the learned Magistrate to pass an order for closure of the case against the procedure established under the law. 5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s son is a International Champion in Carting and non-closure of the ‘B’ report is coming in the way of renewal of the passport. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate and seek for an order to serve the copy of the ‘B’ report on the complainant and also by e-mail and proceed in accordance with law as early as possible. The application for renewal of the passport was filed in the month of December 2020 and in view of the pendency of this case, the petitioner could not get the renewal of the passport and hence, the learned Magistrate is directed to take a decision in accordance with law within one month from today in accordance with law. Though the petitioner is not having any right prior to issuance of process, in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, keeping in view the future of the son of the petitioner, the above order is passed. 6. With this observation, writ petition is disposed of.