LAWS(SC)-2017-4-104

MAHENDRA SINGH DHONI Vs. YERRAGUNTLA SHYAMSUNDAR

Decided On April 20, 2017
Mahendra Singh Dhoni Appellant
V/S
Yerraguntla Shyamsundar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present transfer petition was filed seeking transfer of proceedings in Complaint Case No.1320 of 2015 titled as Yerraguntla Shymsundar Vs. Mr. Chaitanya Kaibag & Anr. pending before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore in Karnataka.

(2.) When the matter was listed on 29.01.2016, this Court issued notice and directed stay of further proceedings of the complaint case pending before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, the matter was called on certain occasions and today when the matter was taken up, Ms. Liz Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7115 of 2017 seeking quashment of the complaint case filed against the petitioner. Ordinarily, we would have been loath to entertain such an application but, in view of the asseverations made to the effect that a complaint of same nature arising from a different trial court has been entertained and quashed, we have entertained the same.

(3.) Learned counsel has drawn inspiration from order dated Sept. 5, 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.843 and 847 of 2016 whereby this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated in Complaint Case No.1978 of 2015 titled as Jayakumar Hiremath Vs. Mahendra Singh Dhoni & others filed in the Court of IX Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sec. 295A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Be it noted, in the said case, though the High Court of Karnataka was moved under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it declined to intervene and quash the proceedings. This Court, upon perusal of the complaint and the allegations made in the complaint petition, opined that the allegations made in the complaint petition did not satisfy the ingredients to constitute an offence under Sec. 295A read with Sec. 34 Penal Code and accordingly quashed the same.