Karnataka High Court
Smt. Raj Rajeshwari vs State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6514 OF 2020
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6512 OF 2020, 6551 OF 2020,
6554 OF 2020, 6556 OF 2020, 6562 OF 2020
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6664 OF 2020
IN CRL.P.NO.6514/2020:
BETWEEN
SUMITH CHOWAN,
W/o. PIYUSH CHOWAN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.90,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
NAGONDANAHALLI,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... PETITIONER
(SRI. SANTHOSH B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2
2. PRAVEEN N,
S/O. LATE SOUNDARAJA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.35,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... RESPONDENTS.
[BY SMT. YASHODA K.P. HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
-----
CRL.P.NO.6514/2020 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.821/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. C.J.M.,
BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.515/2019 OF WHITEFIELD
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 447, 448, 141, 143, 504, 506 AND 507
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
IN CRL.P.NO.6512/2020:
BETWEEN
SMT. RAJ RAJESHWARI,
C/O. ARENGA PANDIAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.91, 4TH CROSS,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
NAGONDANAHALLI,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... PETITIONER.
(SRI. SANTHOSH B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
3
BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. PRAVEEN N,
S/O. LATE SOUNDARAJA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.35,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... RESPONDENTS.
[BY SMT. YASHODA K.P. HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
-----
CRL.P.NO.6512/2020 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.821/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. C.J.M.,
BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.515/2019 OF WHITEFIELD
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 447, 448, 141, 143, 504, 506 AND 507
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
IN CRL.P.NO.6551/2020:
BETWEEN
CHERIAN MATHEW,
S/O. T.T. MUTHAYIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.99, 4TH CROSS,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
NAGONDANAHALLI,
WHITEFIELD,
4
BANGALORE-560 066. ... PETITIONER.
(SRI. SANTHOSH B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. PRAVEEN N,
S/O. LATE SOUNDARAJA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.35,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... RESPONDENTS.
[BY SMT. YASHODA K.P. HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
-----
CRL.P.NO.6551/2020 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.821/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. C.J.M.,
BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.515/2019 OF WHITEFIELD
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 447, 448, 141, 143, 504, 506 AND 507
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
IN CRL.P.NO.6554/2020:
BETWEEN
SUJATHA,
5
W/O. DEVANDRA TAK,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.90,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
NAGONDANAHALLI,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... PETITIONER.
(SRI. SANTHOSH B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. PRAVEEN N,
S/O. LATE SOUNDARAJA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.35,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... RESPONDENTS.
[BY SMT. YASHODA K.P. HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
-----
CRL.P.NO.6554/2020 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.821/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. C.J.M.,
BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.515/2019 OF WHITEFIELD
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 447, 448, 141, 143, 504, 506 AND 507
6
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
IN CRL.P.NO.6556/2020:
BETWEEN
H.G. ARUN,
S/O. B. GURAYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
NEAR BATHESHWARA TEMPLE,
MANJUNATH LAYOUT,
BIDHARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 102. ... PETITIONER.
(SRI. SANTHOSH B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. PRAVEEN N,
S/O. LATE SOUNDARAJA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.35,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... RESPONDENTS.
[BY SMT. YASHODA K.P. HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
-----
7
CRL.P.NO.6556/2020 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.821/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. C.J.M.,
BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.515/2019 OF WHITEFIELD
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 447, 448, 141, 143, 504, 506 AND 507
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
IN CRL.P.NO.6562/2020:
BETWEEN
ARENGA PANDYAN,
S/O. AYYANATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.91, 4TH CROSS,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
NAGONDANAHALLI,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... PETITIONER.
(SRI. SANTHOSH B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. PRAVEEN N,
S/O. LATE SOUNDARAJA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.35,
8
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... RESPONDENTS.
[BY SMT. YASHODA K.P. HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
-----
CRL.P.NO.6562/2020 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.821/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. C.J.M.,
BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.515/2019 OF WHITEFIELD
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 447, 448, 141, 143, 504, 506 AND 507
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
IN CRL.P.NO.6664/2020:
BETWEEN
JINOO CHERIAN,
S/O. CHERIAN MATHEW,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.99, 4TH CROSS,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
NAGONDANAHALLI,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... PETITIONER.
(SRI. SANTHOSH B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
9
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. PRAVEEN N,
S/O. LATE SOUNDARAJA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.35,
PRESTIGE GLEN MORGAN,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 066. ... RESPONDENTS.
[BY SMT. YASHODA K.P. HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
-----
CRL.P.NO.6664/2020 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.821/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. C.J.M.,
BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.515/2019 OF WHITEFIELD
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 447, 448, 141, 143, 504, 506 AND 507
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR, 'FOR BEING
SPOKEN TO', THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
All these petitions arise out of common proceedings in C.C.No.821 of 2020 filed by different accused. Since the complaint, the incident and the case remain the same, they are taken up together and considered by this order. 10
2. Heard Sri Santhosh B., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, in all these cases. The complainant - respondent No.2 who is common in all these cases, is served and remained unrepresented.
3. The petitioners are all residents of an apartment - Prestige Glen Morgan Layout at Whitefield. The complainant in all these cases is also a resident of the same apartment complex. The allegation is, in front of flat Nos.89 to 100 the Association of the apartment complex conducted a general body meeting and resolved to construct security room and park in front of Flat Nos.89 to 100. This was communicated to the owners of the apartment by way of e-mail. When the work was sought to be commenced, it appears that owners of flat Nos. 89 to 100 objected to the putting up of the security room in front of their flats contending that such construction would be blocking the passage which those flat owners were using. On the next day, there were altercations between flat owners and petitioners, 11 which led to both of them registering cases against each other. The petitioners registered a complaint in Crime No.514 of 2019 for offences punishable under Section 427, 506, 34 and 447 of the IPC. As a counter blast, the owners of the flats who had objected to undertaking of works also registered a complaint in Crime No.515 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 143, 504, 141, 447, 448, 506, 507 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. Therefore, the present proceedings are case and counter case.
4. It appears that proceedings which the petitioners had filed have ended in the filing a 'B' report by the police to which, the petitioners claim to have filed a protest petition and in the proceedings against the petitioners, who are arraigned as accused, the Police have filed the charge sheet. Therefore, it is a case and counter case that is now brought before this Court. But what is called in question is the one where the charge sheet is filed against the petitioners.
12
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the case filed by them where the Police have filed 'B' report, the petitioners have filed a protest petition and the proceedings are pending consideration and would submit that 'B' report is filed as the investigation is done by two different Investigating Officers in respect of the same incident and would fall foul of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MISHRILAL (DEAD) AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 9 SCC 426. He would also submit that both the proceedings be held simultaneously/together in terms of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C.
6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that it is a matter of trial and the case where 'B' report is filed has nothing to do with the charge sheet that is filed in the case at hand and it is for the petitioners to come out clean in the trial.
13
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated events are not in dispute. The registration of crime by the petitioners against the complainant is also not in dispute though it is at the stage of consideration or otherwise of the 'B' report before the competent Court. The complainant have also registered a crime against the petitioners for offences as aforesaid. Therefore, these are two cases that have arisen in a squabble that took place on 09-12-2019. In the complaint registered by the petitioners against the complainant in the case at hand and others, the police have after investigation filed a 'B' report. The offences alleged are prima facie made out in the complaint and in the recitals in the charge sheet filed by the police reading -
"PÀ®A 341, 323, 447, 448, 141, 143, 504, 506, 507 ¸À»vÀ 149 L¦¹ ªÉÊmï ¦üïïØ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ²ªÀPÀÄAlªÀÄä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ §½ EgÀĪÀ ¥Éæ¹ÖÃeï UÉè£ï ªÀiÁUÀð£ï ¯ÉÃOmï £À GvÀÛgÀ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¥sÁèmï £ÀA.89-100 gÀªÀgÀV£À ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀ PÁªÀÄ£ï KjAiÀiÁ EzÀÄÝ, F eÁUÀzÀ°è ¥ÁPïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉPÀÆåjn 14 gÀƪÀiï£ÀÄß PÀnÖ¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV C¸ÉÆùAiÉÄõÀ£ï £À Annual General Body Meeting £À°è ZÀað¹ wêÀiÁð£À vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ E-ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¯ÉÃOmï£À J®èjUÀÆ w½¹zÀÄÝ.
¢£ÁAPÀ 09/12/19 gÀAzÀÄ PÁªÀÄ£ï KjAiÀiÁªÀ£ÀÄß QèÃ£ï ªÀiÁr, ¥É¤ìAUï ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV C¸ÉÆùAiÉÄõÀ£ï ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï DzÀ ±À-10 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÆ¥ÀgïªÉʸÀgï ¸Á-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸Á-6 jAzÀ ¸Á-9 gÀªÀjAzÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 01.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ¥sÁèmï £ÀA.88 jAzÀ 99 gÀªÀgÉV£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ PÁ®A £ÀA.4 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J-2, PÁ®A £ÀA.2 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J-4, J-5 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸Á-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-10 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀzÀAvÉ vÀqÉzÀÄ, F eÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ, E°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §AzÀgÉ ¸Á¬Ä¹ ©qÀĪÀÅzÁV ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, J-5 DgÉÆæ ¸Á-2 gÀªÀjUÉ ¨ÉzÀj¹, PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ºÁUÀÆ EzÉà ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 09/12/19 gÀAzÀÄ J-4 DgÉÆæ ¸Á-3 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ CwPÀæªÀÄ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ªÀiÁr, PÁªÀÄ£ï KjAiÀiÁ QèÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ MAzÀÄ UÀw PÁt¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, PÁ®A £ÀA.2gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J-7 DgÉÆæ, ¸Á-3 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.9986697352 ºÁUÀÆ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.9880355388 UÉ vÀ£Àß ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.9535159498 ¤AzÀ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr PÁªÀÄ£ï KjAiÀiÁzÀ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¢£ÁAPÀ 10/12/19 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 03.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸Á-1, ¸Á-3, ¸Á-4, ¸Á-5, ¸Á-10, ¸Á-11, ¸Á-12, ¸Á-13, ¸Á-14 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÁzÀ ¸Á-6, ¸Á-7, ¸Á-8, ¸Á-9 gÀªÀjAzÀ PÁªÀÄ£ï KjAiÀiÁªÀ£ÀÄß QèÃ£ï ªÀiÁr¸À®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-9 J-10, J-11 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ PÁªÀÄ£ï KjAiÀiÁUÉ ¥ÀæªÉò¹, PÁªÀÄ£ï KjAiÀiÁªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁèPï ªÀiÁr, PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀzÀAvÉ vÀqÉzÀÄ, E°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹zÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ MAzÀÄ UÀw PÁt¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ DgÉÆÃ¥À.
DzÀÝjAzÀ J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-5, J-7, J-9, J-10, J-11 DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ."
The fact remains that the aforesaid offences alleged arise out of the same incident against which the petitioners also have filed complaint against the complainant in the case at hand. The 15 complainant and the petitioners are all residents of Prestige Glen Morgan Layout apartment complex. Since 'B' report is pending consideration before the competent Court in Crime No.514 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 34 of the IPC, I deem it appropriate not to entertain the present petitions at this juncture as cases brought before this Court by the petitioners are in the realm of disputed questions of fact, which necessarily require further proceedings to be conducted.
9. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, different Investigating Officers on a solitary incident have acted in two different ways, one filing a charge sheet and the other, filing a 'B' report. The learned counsel would submit that it is for that reason the Investigating Officer in a solitary crime, which is a case and counter case, should be the same. Consideration of the said submission at this stage is unwarranted as it is available for the petitioners to urge the same in the event prejudice is caused by any order that would 16 be passed by the learned Magistrate. Finding serious disputed questions of fact, I decline to entertain these petitions at this stage. However, it is open to the Court to consider the case of the petitioners in C.C.No.821 of 2020 subject to outcome of proceedings in Crime No.514 of 2019.
10. With the aforesaid observations all these petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj