B SRIRAMULU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a former minister in the State Government is invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of CR.P.C. 1973 for the quashment of criminal proceedings in CC No.481/2023 pending on the file of learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, for the offence p/u/S 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that even taking the complaint at face value, there is no commission of offence at all in terms of Sec. 188 of IPC, and therefore, the subject criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in terms of Apex Court decision in STATE OF HARYANA VS. C H BHAJAN LAL, AIR 1992 SC 604. In support of his contention as to what all is required as ingredients to constitute the offence, he presses into service a decision of Calcuta High Court in HABIBUR RAHAMAN KHAN VS. STATE and OTHERS, 1982 ONLINE CAL 51.

(3.) Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State vociferously resists the Petition making submission in justification of trial Court's order taking cognizance of the offence and issuance of process to the accused for the offence in question. He also banks upon a deicision fo the Apex Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SAYYED HASSAN SAYYED SUBHAN (2019) 8 SCC 145. From the records he points out that despite issuance of summons on multiple occasions, Petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate pleading that the summons has not been served. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Petition.