Nazeer Sab and Others vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J—The present petition is filed by A1, A3 and A4 in CC No. 184/2014 pending on the file of the Court of JMFC, Lingasugur for quashing of the entire proceedings which was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 468, 120(B) of IPC. It is submitted that the other accused person by name Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Khadri, arrayed as A5 had already approached this Court in Criminal Petition No. 200875/2014 and this Court vide order dated 31.3.2015 quashed the entire proceedings against the said accused/petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits before this Court that there are no divisible or separable allegations made against the present petitioners compared to the allegations made against A5 in favour of whom the proceedings are already been quashed by this Court.

I have carefully perused the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 200875/2014 dated 31.3.2015. The facts briefly stated are that -

"One Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Lingasugur, lodged first information report before the Lingasugur Police making allegations that he has been working as Executive Officer since 6.10.2009. Anehosur village falls within the jurisdiction of Lingasugur Taluk Panchayat. It is alleged that accused persons who are shown in the first information report including the present petitioner alleged to have discharged their duties as Secretaries and Chairman of the said Gram Panchayat of Lingasugur. It is also alleged that without following certain rules, they have misappropriated the funds allotted to the said panchayat and for the purpose of wrongful gain, they have utilised the said funds for themselves without giving any details. The allegations in the complaint are bald and it does not give the details of the names of the Secretaries and Chairman, name of the scheme and the amount which was misappropriated. But, without giving such details, he requested the police to take appropriate action. On the basis of such information, the police have registered a case in Crime No. 14/2010 for the above said offences and after completion of the investigation submitted B-Summary report specifically stating that after due investigation no documentary or oral evidence are available in order to substantiate the allegations made in the first information report."

The Police have submitted the statement of the witnesses, B-Final report and after going through the contents of B-Report, the Magistrate was not satisfied with regard to the mode of investigation done by the agency. Therefore, he rejected the B-Summary Report and taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused against which order, A5 has already filed Criminal Petition and the other petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court.

In detail considering the provisions of Section 190 of Cr.P.C. and also u/Ss. 200 to 204 of Cr.P.C., this Court has held that issuance of process against the petitioner in the said petition as bad in law, consequently, the said proceeding was quashed. In brief, the Court has observed that the Trial Court has rejected the B-Summary report, but there was no material independent of the contents of the B-Summary report available to the Court to take cognizance and issue summons, because no private complaint was filed before the Court nor any protest petition was filed challenging the B-Summary report. Therefore, the Court was left with only the contents of the B-Final report which according to the Magistrate itself was liable to be rejected and accordingly, he rejected. However, without any materials on record, he issued process against the accused which was found fault with by this Court while quashing the proceedings. On perusal of the averments of ''B'' report, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations in FIR are omnibus in nature against all the accused persons, they are not divisible or separable in nature. Therefore, when once, this Court has already come to the conclusion so far as A5 is concerned, and the proceedings were held to be illegal and liable to be quashed, the same principle has to be applied so far as these petitioners are concerned. Therefore, it is just and necessary to allow the petition giving the same benefit to the petitioners on the ground of parity.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, all further proceedings in CC No. 184/2014 on the file of the Court of JMFC, Lingasugur so far as it pertains to the petitioners are concerned is hereby quashed.