Karnataka High Court
Satish Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2686/2015
BETWEEN:-
SATISH KUMAR
POLICE INSPECTOR
STATE INTELLIGENCE
D.G. OFFICE,BANGALORE
FORMERLY
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION
MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: CHANDRAMOULI H S, ADV.,)
AND:-
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF MADIKERI
RURAL POLICE STATION
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.
2. SRI. K C GOKULA
S/O CHINNAPPA K T
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
3. SMT. K C MEENAKSHI
W/O K C GOKULA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
2 & 3 ARE R/AT KOPATTI VILLAGE
MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R1
SRI: HARISH GANAPATHY M.L, ADV., FOR R2 & R3)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.1/2014 (PHR NO.1/2009)
ON THE FILE OF PRL. S.J., KODAGU AT MADIKERI AS AGAINST
THE PETR. HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 166, 324, 323, 354,
388, 442, 445, 504 AND 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner/accused No.7 has sought for quashing of the proceedings initiated against him by the respondent No.2 in PCR No.1/2014 (PHR No.1/2009) on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri.
2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 presented complaint under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 before the Sessions Judge at Madikeri against the petitioner and others who are all Police personnel working as Police Constable, Sub-Inspector, Circle Inspector. The averments made out in the complaint in a nutshell are that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are husband and wife. They are 3 residing at Kopatti village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District along with their children. They are looking after their affairs and leading life smoothly. They are not involved in any other affairs. When the matter stood thus one K. Dhananjaya gave a false and fabricated statement against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 05.05.2009 stating that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 obstructed him on the road and picked up quarrel with him and assaulted him with their hands on his body as he disconnected water supply to them even though such thing never happened. On the basis of said false statement, one Appaiah, A.S.I., registered a false case against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.49/2009 of BPS for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC and submitted FIR to ACJD and JMFC, Madikeri, Kodagu. On 08.05.2009, respondent No.2 was not in his house and he was in his lands at about 11.00 a.m. At that time, accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 came inside the house of petitioners and 4 abused the respondent No.3 in foul language and tried to outrage her modesty. When respondent No.3 raised hue and cry, respondent No.2 rushed to the house. The accused broke open the door of the house and thrown all the articles, which were in the house and taken Rs.20,000/- which was in the room of respondent Nos.2 and 3. They also assaulted the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed complaint before the Sessions Judge to punish all of them for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 324, 323, 354, 388, 442, 445, 504 and 506 of IPC.
3. The order sheet of the Sessions Judge in PHR No. 2/2012 dated 29.06.2009 reads as under:-
"This petition presented on 29.06.2009 by Sri. T.R.V, Advocate for the petitioners U/S 30 of PHR Act.
Prays to punish the respondents in accordance with law for violation of human right of the petitioner.
Petition copy not served to Respondents. Complainant present.5
Heard Counsel Issue notice to Resp 1/7"
4. On 08.09.2009, one Sri. KSK, Advocate filed Vakalath for respondent Nos.1 to 7. The case was posted on 30.07.2009. Thereafter, the case came to be adjourned to 30.10.2009, 26.12.2009, 06.02.2010, 27.03.2010, 21.05.2010, 24.07.2010, 18.08.2010, 18.11.2010, 29.12.2010, 24.01.2011, 30.03.2011, 18.05.2011, 25.07.2011, 13.09.2011, 05.11.2011, 29.12.2011 and so on. On 17.11.2014, the order sheet discloses that office was directed to register this case as PCR Under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 30 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The case was posted on 28.11.2014, 11.12.2014, 03.01.2015, 30.01.2015, 06.02.2015, 07.03.2015, 28.03.2015 on which day amended PCR was filed and same was referred to S.P. Kodagu Distrct under Rule 6(2) of Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 with the direction to investigate and submit report by 18.04.2015. 6
5. At this stage, the petitioner who is arrayed as accused has filed this petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that the Sessions Judge having taken cognizance on the complaint by his order dated 29.06.2009 and summoned the accused who attended the Court about 20 times as directed by the Sessions Judge, it is not open for the Sessions Judge to amend the complaint and refer it for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the complaint has been referred under Section 156(3) for investigation and report to none other than the Superintendent of Police, Kodagu who is arrayed as accused No.2 in the complaint. The accused cannot be an Investigating Officer. It is also contended that no prior sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has been obtained to take cognizance of the offences as against the petitioner who is public servant. For all these reasons, the 7 learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the complaint and all further proceedings arising out of it.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/complainant relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 609 in the case of S.R. Sukumar vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram, would submit that the amendment of the complaint is permissible, the amendment of the complaint is in noway changed the nature of the complaint or the relief claimed therein. The learned counsel further submitted that though accused No.2 is a Superintendent of Police, Kodagu to whom the complaint has been referred for investigation, the allegations made out are against the Superintendent of Police who was working at Kodagu as on the date of the incident and therefore there is nothing wrong in referring the complaint to the present Superintendent of Police, Kodagu for investigation. Further, so far as sanction 8 is concerned, it is submitted that the rules themselves speak that after investigation the records of the investigation will have to be submitted to the sanctioning authorities and therefore, the question of obtaining sanction will come into play at the time of taking cognizance of the offence by the Court and not at the time of referring the complaint for investigation. For all these reasons, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner.
7. Admittedly, the petition filed on 29.06.2009 is a complaint for all purpose under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 30 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge issued notice to the petitioner/accused on 29.06.2009, the date of presentation of the complaint and summoned him to appear before him. The very fact that the Sessions Judge issued notice to the petitioner goes to show that he took cognizance of the 9 offences against them. The accused/petitioner appeared in response to the summons. The case came to be adjourned from time to time for years together and on 17.11.2014, after two years the Sessions Judge directed the office to register the case as PCR under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. After registration of the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, by order dated 28.03.2015 the learned Sessions Judge referred the complaint to S.P. Kodagu under Rule 6(2) of Karnataka States Human Rights Courts Rules for investigation and report. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge having taken cognizance on his own, at the first instance is not empowered subsequently to refer the complaint for investigation to Superintendent of Police, Kodagu. It is impermissible in law. As such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed for the said reason. Further, the complaint has been referred to the Superintendent of Police, 10 Kodagu, for investigation who is arrayed as accused No.2. Needless to say that an accused cannot be an Investigating Officer. On this count also the complaint is liable to be quashed.
8. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated in PCR No.1/2014 (PHR No.1/2009) on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR