- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14805 CRL.P No. 8454 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8454 OF 2017 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PRASHANTH HEGDE, S/O. LATE RATNAKAR HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT # 261/B, 7TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-38. 2. SMT. SHIRIN HEGDE W/O. SRI. PRASHANTH HEGDE AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT # 261/B, 7TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-38. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.N. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION, REP. BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGLAURU - 560001. 2. SRI. ALI HASKAR P K LEGAL MANAGER, RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., # 119, RADHAKRISHNA SADANA, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14805 CRL.P No. 8454 of 2017 ABOVE HDFC BANK, GANDHI BAZAR, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. VENKATESH S.ARBATTI, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420,120(B) OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ON A CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN C.C.NO.9793/2016 (CRIME NO.268/2014), AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner are before this Court seeking for following reliefs: a. Set aside the order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, thereby taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners on a charge sheet filed by the respondent No.1 Police in C.C. No.9793/2016 (Crime No.268/2014) at Annexure-A; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14805 CRL.P No. 8454 of 2017 b. quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.9793/2016 (Crime No.268/2014) of respondent No.1 police station) pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code; c. To pass such other order as deemed fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Though several contentions were urged by the petitioner in the matter, one of the contentions urged by Sri. Sandesh J. Chautha, learned senior counsel as regards non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance for the alleged offences would be sufficient for consideration before this Court to dispose of this matter. 3. The order of cognizance dated 12.04.2016 is as under: "Perused the records, cognizance taken for the offence u/s 420, 120(B) of IPC. Register the criminal case and issue Ss to A1 and A2 call on by 16.04.2016." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14805 CRL.P No. 8454 of 2017 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has on several occasions categorically come to a conclusion that while taking cognizance of offence in criminal matters, it is required for the learned Magistrate to apply his mind and the order by itself should be in a position to make out clearly that such application of mind has happened. Suffice it to say that the Honorable Apex Court in Vikas Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1534, has held that there has to be a prima-facie conclusion which is to be arrived at by the learned Magistrate that certain offenses have been committed before issuance of summons. 5. Similar view had been expressed in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharif Ahamad Vs. State of UP and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 726, wherein it is held that apart from the final report filed, the learned Magistrate can take into account the statement of witnesses examined by the police, apply his mind and thereafter issue summons. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14805 CRL.P No. 8454 of 2017 6. In the present case what has been done by learned magistrate is only to state that he has perused the records and cognizance has been taken for offenses under section 420, 120(B) of IPC. There is absolutely no application of mind which can be categorically seen in the order dated 12.04.2016 and from perusal of the said order in as much as none of the requirements of the aforesaid provisions have been considered and applied to the facts of the case and thereafter a conclusion having been arrived at, that offences have been made out requiring cognizance to be taken, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to, in future too comply with the requirements of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned decisions stated supra. 7. As such, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120(B) of IPC - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14805 CRL.P No. 8454 of 2017 in C.C.No.9793/2016 is hereby quashed. iii. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate orders as observed above and in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. iv. The learned Magistrate shall take up the matter on 21st April, 2025 and pass necessary orders on the aspect of cognizance on that day. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SSD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11