CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 KAR CK 0213

Sri. A B Ganapathy vs The State of Karnataka and Sri. Appu

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 1 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.V. Pint, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal P. No. 1101 of 2011
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 393 words

B.V. Pinto

1.

This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No. 78/2010 arising out of the Crime No. 54/2010 of Jayapura Police Station.

2.

It is the ease of the prosecution that the complainant by name Appu came to the house of the petitioner on 16,09.2010 at about 5 p.m., along with CWs.5 and 6, at that time it is stated that the petitioner has abused the complainant with abusive words attracting the provisions u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and thereafter, a case in Crime No. 54/2010 for offence u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act is registered. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the said offence and also offences under Sections 506 and 497 IPC.

3.

Heard Sri H.N.M. Frasad, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner, Sri Satish R. Girji, learned HCGP for the first and second respondent - State and Sri M. Satish Chandra, Learned Counsel for the third respondent.

4.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that in order to take cognizance of the offence u/s 497 IPC, complaint should have been filed by the aggrieved person. Since the same is not forthcoming, order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 497 IPC is liable to be quashed. He further submits that there is no ''Public View'' attracted in the complaint filed by the third respondent No. 3 and draws his support from Asmathunnisa Vs. State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Another, .

5.

However, it is seen that the Court below should not have taken cognizance u/s 497 IPC on the basis of the complaint and that too, the said Section is added subsequently by the Police and on the basis of the averments which are nor found in the original complaint. Hence, the proceedings u/s 497 IPC in Spl. C.C.No. 78/2010 is hereby quashed and the petitioner shall face trial for other offences only. The observations made in this order is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and Special Judge may not be taken away by the same during trial. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

6.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would seek discharge before the Lower Court. He is at liberty to do so if he is so advised.