Skip to content


Chikkaveerappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1977CriLJ82
AppellantChikkaveerappa
RespondentState of Karnataka and ors.
Excerpt:
- karnataka rent act, 1999.[k.a. no. 34/2001]. section 27(2)(r) :[k. ramanna,j] bona fide requirement of landlord - landlord requiring premises for his/her personal use and occupation no proper challenge to the evidence let in by the landlord held, the requirement of the landlord to be presumed. there is no place for considering comparative hardship under the act. where the landlord claimed that he has inherited the property under a will and there was no challenge by other legatees or claimants, the tenant cannot challenge the genuineness of the will. .....to dismiss the complaint which he could not obviously do. once the magistrate received a 'b' report and the complainant made a request to the magistrate for his own statement and the statement of his witnesses, he had to relegate himself to the position under section 200 and taking cognizance of the case under that section, he should have examined the complainant and the witnesses who were present. thereafter, under section 203, he could have considered the statement of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the investigation, and if no sufficient ground existed for proceeding, he could dismiss the complaint under section 203. this he has not done and, therefore, the order of the magistrate is incorrect and has got to be set aside.2. the revision is therefore,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

D.B. Lal, J.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, dismissing a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, merely after considering the 'B' report submitted by the police. The facts of the case being un controverted, are that a private complaint was instituted before the Magistrate by one Chikkaveerappa purporting to be for an offence under the Untouchability (Offences) Act of 1955. Instead of taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 200, the learned Magistrate asked for investigation by the police under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code which he could do in view of the decision of this Court in Davud Bhai Hasan Ali v. Abhas Bhai (1971) 2 Mys LJ 526 : 1972 Cri LJ 970 and in Chemma v, Laxmichand (1970) 2 Mys LJ (S.N.) No. 226. The police in this case submitted a 'B' Report and the learned Magistrate considering that report has chosen to dismiss the complaint which he could not obviously do. Once the Magistrate received a 'B' report and the complainant made a request to the Magistrate for his own statement and the statement of his witnesses, he had to relegate himself to the position under Section 200 and taking cognizance of the case under that section, he should have examined the complainant and the witnesses who were present. Thereafter, under Section 203, he could have considered the statement of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the investigation, and if no sufficient ground existed for proceeding, he could dismiss the complaint under Section 203. This he has not done and, therefore, the order of the Magistrate is incorrect and has got to be set aside.

2. The revision is therefore, allowed and the order of the Magistrate is set aside. The case is remanded for proceeding according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //