Criminal Petition No. 7209 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12228 CRL.P No. 7209 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 7208 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7209 OF 2018 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7208 OF 2018 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) IN CRL.P No. 7209/2018 BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
SRI. K. R. VISHWANATH, S/O B.C. REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, M/S. LAKSHMI METALS, PROPRIETOR, R/O. NO. 388, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. APRAMEYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ATUL K. ALUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ANNEXE BUILDING, CARLTON HOUSE, #1, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12228 CRL.P No. 7209 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 7208 of 2018 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LVO-080, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, V.I.T.C. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE 51 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.RP.NO.717/2017, DATED 27.08.2018. AND ETC. IN CRL.P NO. 7208/2018 BETWEEN: SRI. K. R. VISHWANATH, S/O B.C. REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, M/S. KRISHNA METAL SUPPLIERS, PROPRIETOR, R/O. NO. 388, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. APRAMEYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ATUL K. ALUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ANNEXE BUILDING, CARLTON HOUSE, #1, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12228 CRL.P No. 7209 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 7208 of 2018 REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LVO-060, (ADDITIONAL) NO.1416/4, III MAIN, ADI CHUNCHANAGIRI MATTA COMPLEX, MANOVANA, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE 51 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.R.P.NO.716/2017, DATED 27.08.2018. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER In these two petitions, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the application filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., as not maintainable. 2. The petitioner being common in both the petitions filed separate applications under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12228 CRL.P No. 7209 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 7208 of 2018 the Court of the I Additional CMM, Bengaluru to discharge him from the case pending in C.C.No.27240/2014 and C.C.No.2681/2015 arising out of Crime No.13/2012 of Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru City and Crime No.15/2012 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru City. 3. In both the cases, charge sheet came to be filed for offences Punishable under Section 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 01.08.2017 in C.C.No.27240/2014 and dated 01.08.2017 in C.C.No.2681/2015, dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner. 5. The impugned orders were assailed before the Sessions Court by way of Revision Petition and the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned orders dismissed the said petition holding that Revision Petition against the order passed on application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C was not maintainable. 6. The learned Sessions Judge relied on a decision reported in ILR 2017 Kar 2970 in Revanna and others V/s. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12228 CRL.P No. 7209 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 7208 of 2018 The State of Karnataka to hold that the Revision Petition is not maintainable in view of the specific bar under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. as the impugned order challenged in the case is within the purview of the interlocutory-order. 7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai V/s. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 2351. It is relevant to re-produce para-15 of the above judgment. "15. The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra), thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C. That apart, this Court in the above-cited cases has unequivocally acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of individual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its afore-stated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12228 CRL.P No. 7209 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 7208 of 2018 This Court, nonetheless, does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law." 8. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that a Revision Petition under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C., can be maintained against an order of the learned Magistrate refusing to discharge the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has therefore, committed an error by not entertaining the Revision Petition on merits and dismissing it as not maintainable. Hence, the following:
Decision
ORDER i) Both the petitions are allowed. ii) The orders dated 27.08.2018 passed in Crl.R.P.No.717/2017 and Crl.R.P.No.716/2017 by the Court of LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City are set aside. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12228 CRL.P No. 7209 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 7208 of 2018 iii) The matter is remitted back to the Sessions Court with a direction to restore both Criminal Revision Petitions to the file and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law, as expediently as possible. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK