Sri Ravi Hegde v. Kelachandra Joseph George

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:10357 CRL.P(No.(4209(of(2021 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(19 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( CRIMINAL(PETITION(NO.(4209(OF(2021( BETWEEN:(

1., SRI,RAVI,HEGDE, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,, EDITOR,IN,CHIEF,KANNADA,PRABHA,, NO.36,,CRESCENT,ROAD,, OPP,MALLIGE,HOSPITAL,, BENGALURU-560001., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,ARUNA,SHYAM,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,S.,SUDHARSAN,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., KELACHANDRA,JOSEPH,GEORGE, AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS,, Digitallytisigned RESIDING,AT,PENT,HOUSE,,by0PRAKASH0N Location: ST.,ANDREWS,BUILDING,, HIGH0COURT GOLF,LINK,SOFTWARE,PARK,, OF KARNATAKA INTERMEDIATE,RING,ROAD,, BANGALORE-560071., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,K.N.,PHANEENDRA,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,SANDEEP,C.T.,,ADVOCATE), , THIS,CRL.P,IS,FILED,U/S,482,CR.PC,,1973,PRAYING,TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, ORDER, DATED, 17.01.2020, TAKING, COGNIZANCE, OF, THE, PROCEEDINGS, REGISTERED, IN, SPL.C.C.NO.48/2020, PENDING, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, LXXXI, ADDITIONAL, CITY, CIVIL, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE, AT, BENGALURU,AND,ETC.,,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who is accused no.4 before the trial court seeking for setting aside of the order dated 17.01.2020, whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner/accused no.4.

¶2The petitioner has also sought for setting aside of entirety of proceedings in Spl.CC 48/2020 pending on the file of LXXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-91) at Bangalore.

¶3At the time of hearing of the matter, it was pointed out that order of cognizance was taken by the learned Sessions Judge which was the Designated Special Court. The offences involved are Section 499 and 500 of IPC, with respect to such offences cognizance could have been taken only by the Magistrate in terms of Section 190 Cr.P.C. Though there was some ambiguity at the

initial stage where Special Courts were set up to try the offences involving elected members, subsequent clarification by the Apex Court is to the effect that the Special Court would be the jurisdictional court, which would mean if the offences is to be tried by a Magistrate, then the court of Magistrate would be competent to try the offences.

¶4In the present case, Section 499 and 500 IPC are triable by the Magistrate. Therefore, the proceedings before the Sessions Court were not permissible.

¶5Accordingly, all proceedings subsequent to

25.11.2019 are set aside and the complaint is to be considered afresh post 25.11.2019 by the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is also clarified that as the complainant is the only elected member and no accused are elected members, the case need not be tried by the Designated Courts for M.P., MLA and elected members, however the proceedings are to be tried by the jurisdictional Magistrate. All contentions of both sides are kept open.

¶6The court may consider the matter afresh without being influenced by any orders passed or proceedings made till this date.

¶7In light of the present order noticing the defect in taking cognizance and issuance of process even insofar as other accused are concerned, who are not present before the court, the proceedings would have to be re-commenced from the same stage as ordered in the present petition. However, it is clarified that proceedings against accused no.3 have culminated in setting aside of the proceedings against him and such closure would not be disturbed. Accordingly, the proceedings against accused nos.1, 2 and 4 may be proceeded with in terms of the above discussion.

¶8Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP