- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6625 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. G KUBERAPPA S/O. THIMMAPPA AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT. NO.404/108, S.S HOSPITAL ROAD, JAYANAGAR B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE – 577 004. EARLIER WORKING AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., DCC BANK LIMITED BUILDING, DC OFFICE CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA – 577 501. PETITIONER IS RETIRED FROM GOVERNMENT SERVICE ON 30.06.2018 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SR.COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI.NAGHARISH G.S, ADVOCATE) AND: INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY THE ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CIRCLE-2(1), 2ND FLOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), 1ST FLOOR, PARK VIEW BUILDING, NO.284/1, Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 4TH MAIN, PJ EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V.RAVIRAJ AND SRI.M.DILIP, ADVOCATES) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.PC THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.349/2016 TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE ACCUSED PERSON WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “a. Call for records in CC No.349/2016, in the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Davanagere. b. Quash the order dated 20.02.2016 passed by II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Davanagere in CC.NO.349/2016 taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused person without application of mind. c. Pass such other suitable order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.“ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that pursuant to the private complaint filed by the respondent - Revenue in CC.No.349/2016 against the petitioner/sole accused the trial Court passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2016 taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner by holding as under: “Perused the complainant and its enclosures. Cognizance is taken for the offences alleged in the complaint. On perusal, it reveals that, the complaint has been filed on official capacity. Thus, recording of sworn statement of the complainant is dispensed with. There are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the offences alleged. Hence, offices to register a criminal case against the accused for the offences alleged and issue summons to the accused. Returnable by 26.05.2016.” 3. A perusal of the impugned order taking cognizance would clearly indicate that the same is a cryptic, laconic and non-speaking and unreasoned order without application of mind and without assigning reasons as to why the trial Court was taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 4. Under identical circumstances, in the case of M/S. JM LABORATORIES AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: ”5. Several submissions have been made on behalf of the appellants. It is contended by the appellants that there are violations of various statutory provisions. It is also contended that the case is barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in Section 468 (2) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the Analytical Report in respect of which the violation is alleged is dated 15th December 2018 whereas the complaint is filed in May 2023. It is submitted that it is filed beyond a period of three years and hence, the same would not be tenable. It is also submitted that there is also non-compliance of the provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 6. However, we do not find it necessary to consider the submissions made by the appellants on various grounds inasmuch as the present appeal is liable to be allowed on the short ground that the learned Magistrate has issued the process without assigning any reasons. 7. It will be relevant to refer to the summoning order which reads thus: “Whereas your attendance is necessary to give evidence in a charge Sec.18(a)(i) r/w Sec. 16(i)(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the accused M/s J.M. Laboratories, Vill. Bhanat, P.O-Ghtti, 1 2025 INSC 127 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 Subathu Road, Solan (H.P.). You are hereby requested to appear in person before the Hon’ble Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool at 10:30 AM on the 10th day of August 2023. Given under my hand the seal of the court this ______ day of July 2023.” 8. In the judgment and order of even date in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled “INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh”, we have observed thus: “33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons are recorded for issuing the process against the accused persons. 34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra): “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. 36. The said law would be consistently following by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others (2015) 12 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 SCC 420 and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021) 5 SCC 435. 37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member, in the case of Lalankumar Singh and Others v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 (supra), has observed thus: “38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation9, which reads thus: “51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.” 39. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna (supra). 40. In the present case, leaving aside there being no reasons in support of the order of the issuance of process, as a matter of fact, it is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, that there was no such order passed at all. The learned Single Judge of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 the High Court, based on the record, has presumed that there was an order of issuance of process. We find that such an approach is unsustainable in law. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed.” 9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non- speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled “INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh”, and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others1, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation2, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others3 and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) The present appeal is allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 4th October 2023 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Criminal Petition No. 5766 of 2023 is quashed and set aside; and (iii) The summoning order dated 19th July 2023 passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 and the proceedings arising therefrom are also quashed and set aside. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 5. As stated supra, the impugned order does not spell out the reasons as to why the trial Court was taking cognizance and in fact, the complaint averments and documents are not even referred to in the impugned order, which is a non-speaking order warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. It is also relevant to state that the impugned order does not disclose as to whether prior/previous sanction had been obtained by the respondent-Revenue before taking cognizance in terms of Section 297 of Income Tax Act r/w Section 197 of Cr.P.C., which is yet another circumstance which would vitiate the impugned order. 7. In the result, I proceed to pass the following ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26376 CRL.P No. 6625 of 2025 ii. The order dated 20.02.2016 passed by II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Davanagere in CC.NO.349/2016 is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for re-consideration afresh bearing in mind the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act in particular Section 279 and Section 197 of Cr.P.C and in accordance with law. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46