Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Pranesh, filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, seeking to quash an order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Criminal Revision Petition No.249/2013. The background of the case is that respondent No.2, Sharachandra, lodged a private complaint against the petitioner in P.C.No.264/2009 before the II-Additional JMFC, Bijapur, for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 417, 419, 465, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police, after investigation, submitted a 'B' summary report (indicating that no case was made out). Aggrieved by the 'B' report, the complainant filed a protest petition. The Magistrate, after considering the protest petition and recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the offences and ordered registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, issuing summons. The petitioner challenged this order before the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Criminal Revision Petition No.249/2013. The Sessions Judge, by order dated 26.09.2014, reserved liberty to respondent No.2 to file a fresh protest petition before the II-Additional JMFC, Bijapur, in C.C.No.3483/2013 (arising out of P.C.No.264/2009). The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash this order. The High Court heard arguments from the counsel for the petitioner, the Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 (State), and the counsel for respondent No.2. The court observed that the Sessions Judge, in revision, did not set aside the Magistrate's order taking cognizance but merely reserved liberty to file a fresh protest petition. The High Court held that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order without setting aside the Magistrate's order. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Criminal Revision Petition No.249/2013, and granted liberty to respondent No.2 to file a fresh protest petition before the II-Additional JMFC, Bijapur, in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Jurisdiction of Sessions Court - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - The Sessions Court in revision cannot reserve liberty to file a fresh protest petition without setting aside the Magistrate's order taking cognizance, as it lacks jurisdiction to do so. The order granting such liberty is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Paras 3-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Protest Petition - Cognizance - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - After police submit 'B' summary report, the Magistrate may take cognizance on a protest petition after recording sworn statement. The Sessions Court cannot interfere with such order without setting it aside. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, had the jurisdiction to reserve liberty to respondent No.2 to file a fresh protest petition without setting aside the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Criminal Revision Petition No.249/2013, granting liberty to respondent No.2 to file a fresh protest petition before the II-Additional JMFC, Bijapur, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Sessions Court in revision
- Power to reserve liberty to file fresh protest petition
- Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Requirement to set aside order before granting liberty
