SIDDARAMA REDDY AND ORS. Vs. INDRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 11 before the Trial Court in C.C. No. 190/2014 have filed this petition seeking quashing of the entire proceedings registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 323 and 504 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for Sri Sanjay A. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.K. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent and perused the records.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent drawn my attention to the order of the learned Magistrate stating that the learned Magistrate has observed that private complaint filed by the complainant was referred to the police. The police have filed 'B' final report and it was challenged by the complainant by filing protest memo and on the basis of the sworn statement of the complainant as C.W. 1, arguments were heard and thereafter, summons were issued. The said observation of the learned Magistrate is without any basis. There is absolutely no material to show that the case was referred to the police at any point of time and any 'B' report is submitted and nothing is spelled out by the learned Magistrate about the contents of the 'B' report. The learned Magistrate might not have applied his judicious mind to correct the order passed by him in consonance with the proceedings taken before the Court right from the date of lodging of the compliant. As I have narrated, this particular portion of the order that is referring the matter to the police is contrary to the proceedings before the Court as the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the date of filing of complaint itself i.e., on 06.06.2012 and proceeded with the case. This shows that the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind to the proceedings taken place before him.