CHANDRA PROTECO LTD. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 5 have filed this petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them in C.C.No.1626/2014 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Ballari for the offences punishable under Ss. 409, 420 r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that the Magistrate without proper application of mind, in a routine and mechanical manner taken cognizance of the case against the petitioners in the instant case which is purely abusing of the process of law. Respondent No.2 has not exhausted any remedy provided under Sec. 154 (1) and (3) of Cr.P.C and straightaway filed the complaint based on letter of authority and subsequently on 3/2/2015, the investigating officer has sought permission to produce such documents. However, the learned Magistrate has not passed any orders in this regard.

(3.) In the absence of any complaint under Sec. 154 and direction under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. there is total violation of directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case. Under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on complaint shall examine upon oath, the complainant and his witnesses if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced in writing and shall be signed by the complainant, witnesses and also the Magistrate. In the instant case, on the same day of filing the complaint, the learned Magistrate has referred it to the concerned police for investigation and charge sheet is filed, cognizance is taken. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C is not followed. Affidavit in support the complaint as required under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C is not filed. The learned Magistrate has also not issued direction under Sec. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C to the concerned police to investigate.