D C DEVARAJ Vs. K C KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against him in C.C.No.2263/2005 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) & JMFC, Chikmagalur for the offences punishable under Sections 166 & 506 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C in P.C.R.No.422/03 before the Additional JMFC, Chikmagalur alleging the aforesaid offences against the petitioner in respect of the incident said to have occurred at about 1.00 p.m. on 5.12.2013, in the office of the petitioner herein where he was working as District Magistrate of Co-operative Societies, Chikmagalur. The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was presented, referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure to the police. The police after investigation filed a 'B' summary report. The respondent filed protest petition. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged, recorded sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses and thereafter by impugned order held that sufficient materials are produced against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. Consequently, directed registration of criminal case and issue of summons to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the Crl.Revision Petition No.59/2006 before the Sessions Court, which came to be allowed by order dated 14.02.2007 and the complaint filed by the respondent was ordered to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein filed Crl.Revision Petition No.1280/2007 before this court, which came to be allowed vide order dated 16.07.2009 holding that revision petition before the Sessions Court, was not maintainable and it was open to the petitioner herein to invoke the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter while allowing the revision petition, this court reserved liberty to the petitioner herein to challenge the order of the Magistrate by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. thereafter the petitioner has presented this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) I have the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the reading of the complaint itself would prima facie indicate that the alleged act was during discharge of the official duty by the petitioner as such without a sanction under the provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance. Therefore, the order taking cognizance and issuing summons to the petitioner, who is a public servant is bad in law. He further contended that there has been inordinate delay in filing the complaint, which has not been explained and the present complaint is filed as a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the respondent and therefore, there are no bona fides on the part of the respondent in lodging the complaint. He further contented that the allegations made in the complaint does not prima facie prove the ingredients of the offences alleged therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.