w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Srushti P. Patil v/s Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Represented by its Principal, Bengaluru & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- A G RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85120TG2014PTC093661

Company & Directors' Information:- J J INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2009PTC195107

Company & Directors' Information:- M S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U85110KL2005PTC018375

Company & Directors' Information:- A P S MEDICAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049991

Company & Directors' Information:- R V INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80300TG2008PLC059210

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND D RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2003PTC118439

Company & Directors' Information:- F & O RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140TN2004PTC054706

Company & Directors' Information:- C. B. PATIL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH1964PTC012879

Company & Directors' Information:- B. M. MEDICAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110UP2005PTC031054

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M MEDICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U85110TZ2004PTC010914

Company & Directors' Information:- J B RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74920MH2005PTC158461

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000PN2014PTC153230

Company & Directors' Information:- D R S MEDICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100MH1994PTC080815

Company & Directors' Information:- V. K. PATIL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2014PTC150789

Company & Directors' Information:- K V RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85191TN2013PTC092902

Company & Directors' Information:- E D C C RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U73100WB1990PTC048428

Company & Directors' Information:- U 2 RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100MH2008PTC179902

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. MEDICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85195GJ2007PTC050879

    Criminal Petition Nos. 7348, 7345 of 2016

    Decided On, 14 January 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioner: Nandish Patil, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, 14 & 15, Hashmath Pasha, Senior counsel, N. Tejas, R4, Bipin Hegde, R11 & R12, B. Eugene Prabhu, Advocates, R16, Vijayakumar Majage, Addl.SPP.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the order dated 07.05.2016 passed by the Court of C.J.M. Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and restore the complaint filed by the petitioner in PCR No.577/2015 on the file of the CJM Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for offences p/u/s 415, 418 and 420 R/w 34 of IPC and etc.,)1. The Criminal petition No.7348/2016 and the criminal petition No.7345/2016 have been filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to-aside the order dated 07.05.2016 in PCR No.575/2015 and 577/2015 on the file of CJM Rural Court, Bengaluru and restore the complainant filed by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 34,415,418 and 420 of IPC.2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3,14 and 15 and the learned Additional SPP for respondent No.16. As they are formal parties, though this case listed for admission with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.3. The factual matrix of both the cases are that the petitioner-complainant approached the Principal and the Chairman of the respondent institution and paid amount for a medical seat. The respondents have agreed to give the seat. Even though they have taken amount, they have not given seat and have cheated the complainant. On the basis of the complainant, a false case has been registered against the accused. The accused approached this Court in criminal petition No.122/2016 and 124/2016 allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings. However, it has observed that the learned Magistrate is directed to follow the procedure mandated by the Apex Court in the judgment of Priyanka Srivastana and another V/s State of U.P and others reported in AIR 2015 SC 1758.4. It is further observed that the learned counsel appearing for the parties advanced the case on 07.05.2016 and brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate about the order passed by this Court in the above criminal petitions. By taking into consideration of the order of this Court, the complainant was came to be dismissed Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate without properly reading the order has rightly dismissed the complainant.6. It is his further submission that this Court while passing the order has given a liberty to the complainant and the learned Magistrate has to follow the mandate of the Apex Court and entertained the complainant. Without looking into the order of this Court the entire complaint has been closed without given an opportunity to the complainant.7. It is further submission that the learned Magistrate erroneously passed the impugned order. On these grounds, be prays to allow the petition and to set aside the order.8. Per contra, the learned senior counsel submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court in criminal petition No.122/2016 and criminal petition No.124/2016 the trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint as the FIR registered in crime No.356/2015 has been quashed. He fairly submitted that the remedy is left open to the petitioner-complainant to proceed in accordance with law as per the order passed by this Court. This is not proper from to seek any relief. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.9. Learned Additional SPP also substantiate the arguments of learned senior counsel and prays to dismiss the petition.10. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.11. On close reading of the records and especially the order passed by this Court criminal petition No.122/2016 and criminal petition No.124/2016 in this Court by taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srinivastava and another (quoted sputa) has come to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the mandate of the Apex Court in the said decision and in that light the order is illegal and abuse of process of la

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

w. But the liberty has been left open to the petitioner-complainant to proceed by following the procedure granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court.12. In that light, the present petition is not maintainable and there remedy is before the learned Magistrate. If he is advanced to do so, he can file an appropriate application before the learned Magistrate as ordered therein and get the relief in accordance with law.With the above observations, these petitions are disposed off.