GOPALKRISHNA Vs. SHARAD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 State. Perused the records.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings in P.C. No.69/2011, which is later registered as C.C. No.649/2013, on the file of Prl. J.M.F.C., Bhatkal.

(3.) A person by name Sharad Kumar Shirali, who is respondent No.1 herein has lodged a private complaint alleging that the accused - petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity). It appears that the learned Magistrate after registering the complaint has referred the matter to police for investigation and report. After registering the case police have investigated the matter and submitted a final report to the Court that it is a false case. The complainant was given an opportunity to contest the 'B' Final report submitted by police. Accordingly, on 17.06.2013 respondent has filed protest petition, wherein, he has stated that the police have not properly investigated the matter, on the basis of said protest petition and on the allegations made in the original complaint, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and recorded the sworn statement of complainant as P.W.1, one Rajendra as P.W.2 and one Sandeep Shetty as P.W.3. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. against the accused petitioner. As such cognizance is taken against petitioner and summons is also issued to him under Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity). At this juncture, present petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings before the learned Magistrate. Before adverting to the factual matrix of this case and find out whether there are any grounds to quash the entire proceedings, it is just and necessary to bear in mind the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.1.