OMKARAPPA Vs. STATE KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Private complaint was lodged by the second respondent alleging that the subject property was taken for lease by him from the accused-petitioner who is the owner and thereafter the respondent No.2 after investing huge money has put up a floor mill and when such being the case, the petitioner-accused without any valid reasons has assaulted the complainant and his workers and thrown him out of the mill and locked the mill. The learned Magistrate referred the complainant to the police for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.PC. The Police registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 , 427 of IPC and after investigation submitted the 'B' report with the learned Magistrate to which the second respondent filed the protest petition.

(2.) The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the second respondent took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons to the petitioner- accused. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, given a criminal texture with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and with revengeful intent. He further submits that the learned Magistrate without passing an order rejecting the 'B' report at the first instance has recorded the sworn statement and taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence which is impermissible in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of DR.RAVIKUMAR vs. MRS.K.M.C. VASANTHA & ANOTHER , reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725.