IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
1. SRI SHAIK LAIQUE AHMED
S/O S K NAZEER BASHA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
REP. BY HIS G P A HOLDER
SRI S K NAZEER BASHA
2. SRI S K NAZEER BASHA
S/O SHAIK RAHMATHUMIA SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
3. SMT BEGUM JAN
W/O S K NAZEER BASHA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO 8,
AZIZ MULK, 8TH STREET
THOUSAND LIGHTS CHENNAI – 600 006
4. SRI FEROZ NAWAZ KHAN
S/O OF SRI YAKUB NAWAZ KHAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
5. SMT KURSHEED BEGUM
W/O SRI FEROZ NAWAZ KHAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
6. SMT SHANAWAZ BEGUM
DAUGHTER OF MR HUSSAIN KHAN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
7. SMT REHANA BEGUM
DAUGHTER OF MR HUSSAIN KHAN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
NOS. 4 TO 7 ARE R/AT
NO 38/78, AZIZ MULK, 3RD STREET
THOUSAND LIGHTS CHENNAI – 600 006… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, ADV. FOR SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADV.)
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SHIVAJINAGAR
WOMEN POLICE STATION
EAST ZONE, BANGALORE CITY
BANGALORE – 560037
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
2. SMT SYEDA SALMA SADIYA
D/O SYED PASHA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/ AT NO 2629, 37TH CROSS
9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 069 … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. J. D. KASHINATH, ADV. FOR
SRI. MOHAMMED SULTAN BEARY, ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ALL PROCEEDINGS AND COMPLAINT IN P.C.R.NO.12622/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE VI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Heard a schooled warn for a petitioners and a schooled High Court Government Pleader for a initial respondent – State and a schooled warn for a second respondent. Perused a records.
2. The annals divulge that a second respondent has filed a private censure u/s.200 of Cr.PC., purebred in PCR No.12622/2017 for a crime punishable underneath Sections 498A, 377, 323, 354 and 506 of IPC and also u/ss.3 and 4 of a Dowry Prohibition Act. The schooled Magistrate has referred a pronounced censure for review and news sportive energy u/s.156(3) of Cr.PC., and a matter is still available news from a police.
3. On a basement of a above pronounced reference, a initial respondent – military has purebred a censure u/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C., and referred for review and report, that record are called in question.
4. The categorical row of a schooled warn for a petitioners is that before referring a matter, a schooled Magistrate has not looked into a censure averments in sequence to inspect as to either any confirmation is filed by a complainant in accord with a discipline of a Hon’ble Apex Court in a box reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 between Priyanka Srivatsava and another Vs. State of UP Others. It is value to remove paragraphs 26 and 27 of a pronounced visualisation of a Hon’ble Apex Court that reads thus:
“26. At this theatre it is apt to state that energy underneath Section 156(3) warrants focus of legal mind. A justice of law is involved. It is not a military holding stairs during a theatre of Section 154 of a code. A contractor during his possess humour can't plead a management of a Magistrate. A scrupulous and unequivocally distressed citizen with purify hands contingency have giveaway entrance to plead a pronounced power. It protects a adults though when debase litigations takes this track to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be finished to skip and quell a same.
27. In a deliberate opinion, a theatre has come in this nation where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be upheld by an confirmation duly sworn by a applicant who seeks a bid of a office of a Magistrate. That apart, in an suitable case, a schooled Magistrate would be good suggested to determine a law and also can determine a sincerity of a allegations. This confirmation can make a applicant some-more responsible. We are compelled to contend so as such kind of applications are being filed in a slight demeanour but holding any shortcoming whatsoever usually to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes some-more unfortunate and shocking when one tries to collect adult people who are flitting orders underneath a orthodox sustenance that can be challenged underneath a horizon of pronounced Act or underneath Article 226 of a Constitution of India. But it can't be finished to take undue advantage in a rapist justice as if somebody is dynamic to settle a scores. We have already indicated that there has to be before applications underneath territory 154(1) and 164(3) while filing a petition underneath Section 156(3). Both a aspects should be clearly spelt out in a focus and required papers to that outcome shall be filed. The aver for giving a instruction that an a focus underneath Section 156(3) be upheld by an confirmation so that a chairman creation a focus should be unwavering and also attempt to see that no fake confirmation is made. It is since once an confirmation is found to be false, he will be probable for charge in suitability with law. This will deter him to accidentally plead a management of a Magistrate underneath Section 156(3). That apart, we have already settled that a sincerity of a same can also be accurate by a schooled Magistrate, courtesy being had to a inlet of allegations of a case. We are compelled to contend so as a series of cases regarding to mercantile sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, blurb offences, medical loosening cases, crime cases and a cases where there is aberrant delay/laches in initiating rapist prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, a schooled Magistrate would also be wakeful of a check in camp of a FIR”
On suggestive reading of a above pronounced paragraphs, it is transparent that when a justice has to make certain observations, with all certainty that there has to be before news by a complainant before military u/s.154(1) and if a military have not taken any action, he has approached a aloft officers u/s.156(4) and (3) of Cr.PC., before filing a censure and focus u/s.156(3) of Cr.PC., Both a above pronounced aspects should be clearly spelt out in a confirmation along with a required papers to that effect, shall be filed by a complainant.
5. In this sold case, a pronounced procession appears to have not been followed by a complainant. Also, a schooled Magistrate has not looked into this sold aspect. Therefore, in my opinion, a anxiety sequence upheld by a schooled Magistrate u/s.156(3) is bad in law and material registration of a FIR also deserves to be quashed.
Hence, a following:
The Petition is allowed. Consequently, a sequence upheld by a VI Addl. CMM, Bengaluru City in PCR No.12622/2017 antiquated 11.10.2017 referring a censure for review and news u/s.156(3) of Cr.PC., is hereby set aside and a material registration of FIR by a initial respondent military is hereby quashed. However, a censure filed by a respondent No.2 is easy on to a record of a schooled VI Addl. CMM Bengaluru with a instruction that a Magistrate has to go by a observations finished by a Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivatsa’s Case as remarkable above and follow a procession as contemplated therein and pass suitable sequence in suitability with law.