Karnataka High Court
Miss Sanjana Galrani vs State Of Karnataka By on 28 July, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3825 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MISS SANJANA GALRANI
D/O MANOHAR GALRANI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
OCCUPATION: CELEBRITY
R/AT NO. 101, SAI TEJAS
SHAREEN APARTMENT
INDIRANGAR 100 FEET ROAD
BEHIND PETER ENGLAND SHOWROOM
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
CUBBONPARK POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY - 560 001.
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA)
2. MS. VANDANA JAIN
D/O. SHANTHI LAL
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
-2-
CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
R/AT NO.5, THULASI APARTMENT
REST HOUSE, CRESCENT ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI BOPANNA P.C., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE ORDER DATED
11.02.2021 PASSED IN PCR NO.2917/2021 ON THE FILE OF
THE HONBLE VIII A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU AS PER
ANNEXURE-A IN REFERRING COMPLAINT FOR INVESTIGATION
UNDER SEC.156(3) OF CR.PC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW, CONSEQUENTLY. 2.TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN
CR.NO.34/2021 OF CUBBON PARK P.S., BENGALURU AS PER
ANNEXURE-C AND INVESTIGATION FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER
SEC.326A, 506, 323, 324, 335 OF IPC WHICH IS REGISTERED
ON THE BASIS OF ORDER PASSED IN PCR NO.2917/2021 ON
THE FILE OF THE HONBLE VIII A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU AND
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.34/2021, which arose out of registration of a private complaint dated 11.02.2021 in PCR No.2917/2021.
-3-CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
2. Heard Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has remained absent throughout and on 21.07.2022, this Court had ordered that in the event, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 would not appear, the matter would be taken up in his absence and considered, so it is.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows:
A brawl between two celebrities in a up scale lounge Bar in the Central Business District of Bengaluru, leads to registration of a complaint by the second respondent claiming to be the victim of behaviourial abuses by the petitioner. This complaint is closed by the jurisdictional police rendering a non-cognizable report as the offences alleged was for assault and criminal intimidation as obtaining under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC. Both -4- CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021 the petitioner and the complainant claim to have been advised by the police and after which, a non-cognizable report was rendered by the police. This is the first attempt of the complainant to register a complaint of an incident that happened on the night of 24.12.2019, on the eve of Christmas.
5. After the closure of the aforesaid complaint, a second attempt is made by the complainant seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., by wanting to register a private complaint. The complaint was not in compliance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 and therefore, the complaint was returned by an order dated 16.03.2020, to be brought before the learned Magistrate in compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court. This is the second attempt made to register the complaint.
-5-CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
6. After about eleven months of the complaint being returned to be brought before the learned Magistrate in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court (supra), a complaint is registered in P.C.R.No.2917/2021 on 10.02.2021, 14 months after the incident and 11 months after the closure of the earlier complaint. This is the third attempt made by the second respondent to register a complaint against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 11.02.2021, refers the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional police, who in turn, registers a crime against the petitioner in crime No.34/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 326A, 506, 504, 323, 324 and 335 of the IPC. It is the registration of the crime in crime No.34/2021 pursuant to the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. -6- CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
7. Learned senior counsel would contend with vehemence that a brawl that happened with the petitioner and the complainant lead the police calling both of them and advising them at the outset and closing the complaint by rendering a non-cognizable report as the offences were non-cognizable. The learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner herself registered a complaint against the second respondent alleging criminal intimidation by the complainant herself. It is his submission with emphasis that none of the offences so alleged can even be found in the case at hand.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the investigation was stalled in the light of the interim order granted by this Court and therefore, not proceeded any further and if the Court would direct investigation. He would seek that the petition may be dismissed has pre- matured.
-7-CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
9. The second respondent though served long ago remains unrepresented even to this date.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
11. The facts afore-narrated need a slight reiteration. A brawl which happened on the night of 24.12.2019, between the petitioner and the complainant results in grave altercations between the two, in which the complainant alleges that the petitioner has thrown a glass of whisky on her face. Throwing a glass of whisky upon her face, results in complainant registering a crime before the police, which came to be closed with a non-cognizable report as the offences alleged was intimidation and assault, which would become offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC, as the case would be. After the incident, the complainant again seeks to register -8- CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021 a private complaint by invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., that also was returned for the want of compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA (supra) and there ended the second complaint. After about one year of the return of the second complaint, a fresh complaint is registered in compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA, on 11.02.2021, after about 11 months of the return of the earlier complaint and 14 months after the alleged incident.
12. A perusal at the complaint would indicate depiction of graphic details that were not even alleged on the hitherto two complaints registered on 25.12.2019 or 03.03.2020. The impugned complaint is full of embellishments. The contents of the complaint with regard to the incident being narrated, which was not the case of the complainant in the earlier complaints merits consideration qua the offences so alleged. -9- CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
13. The alleged offences are the ones punishable under Sections 326A, 324, 335 of the IPC. It is germane to notice those provisions to consider whether the incident would attract them at all.
14. Section 326A of the IPC reads as follows:
"Section 326A: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.-- Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or bums or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid1 on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine;
- 10 -CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim;
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim."
Section 326A of the IPC deals with, voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, which becomes punishable as afore-extracted. There is not even an iota of allegation that the liquid thrown by the petitioner on the face of the complainant, was in fact acid, but what was thrown was a glass of whisky on the night of 24.12.2019. By no stretch of imagination, whisky can be said to be acid as obtaining under Section 326A of the IPC. A serious offence of acid attack is invoked in the case at hand against the petitioner recklessly by the police. A perusal at the complaint is to the effect that, the eyes of the complainant became blurred after the splash of whisky upon her face. This cannot be equivated to splash of acid upon her face. The complaint is registered after 14
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021 months of the incident. No document with regard to any problem of the eyesight is either appended or mentioned before the Court. Therefore, the said allegation cannot even get remotely attracted in the case at hand.
15. The other allegation is the one punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. Section 324 of the IPC reads as follows:
"324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021 Section 324 of the IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt by deadly weapon or means. The Apex Court while interpreting Section 324 of the IPC has observed that certain ingredients are necessarily to be met while alleging offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, in the case of ANUJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 497, wherein, it has held as follows:
"21. To establish an offence under Sec 324 IPC, the presence of following ingredients is a must which are as follows:--
1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and
2. Such hurt was caused:
a. By any instrument used for shooting, cutting or stabbing, or any other instrument likely to cause death, or b. By fire or other heated instruments, or c. By poison or other corrosive substance, or
- 13 -CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
d. By any explosive substance, or e. By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to swallow, inhale, or receive through blood, or f. By an animal.
22. When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of three years, or with fine."
The Apex Court clearly holds that voluntary hurt should be caused by the ingredients as mentioned in the afore-quoted paragraphs of the judgment.
16. The weapon alleged in the case at hand is a glass of whisky, what is splashed on the face is a glass of whisky and other verbal abuses. It is too far fetched to consider a glass of whisky to be a deadly weapon to become an offence under Section 324 of the IPC. Therefore, even the said offence is not even met in its remotest sense qua the allegations made.
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
17. The other offence alleged is under Section 335 of the IPC, which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation. If the facts narrated in the complaint is considered, no grievous hurt is even alleged. Therefore, even the said offence cannot be laid against the petitioner. These are reckless inclusions by the police.
18. Insofar as the other offences are concerned, all are made after 14 months of the incident. No document is even mentioned or placed to demonstrate that the complainant has taken treatment for any of the allegation that has been laid against the petitioner. The offence punishable under Section 504 or 506 of the IPC also do not have any foundation laid in the complaint. At best, the offence that could have been laid against the petitioner was one punishable under Section 506 of the IPC, not once but twice, both in the complaint by the petitioner and the complaint against the petitioner, which the police have closed the cases by advising the parties to the lis and have rendered a non-cognizable report.
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021
19. In the light of the afore-quoted facts, reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL (1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335), wherein it has held as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021 (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 3825 of 2021 In the light of the afore-extracted judgment of the Apex Court, nowhere in the complaint makes out an offence so alleged against the petitioner. Permitting further proceedings to continue would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
20. For the aforestated reasons, the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings in P.C.R.No.2917/2021 and all further proceedings taken thereto, pending on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NVJ