Karnataka High Court
Papanna Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 March, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7346/2017
BETWEEN:
PAPANNA SHETTY
S/O PUTTA SHETTY
R/AT MALKUNDI VILLAGE
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571301
AND ALSO AT
PAPANNA SHETTY
S/O LATE PUTTA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PRACTICING ADVOCATE
NEAR MUNICIPAL OFFICE
B.N.ROAD, GUNDLUPET TOWN
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVA PRASAD Y.S. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TERAKANAMBI P.S.
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001
2. SMT. LIMITHA
D/O HONNA SHETTI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT PANJANAHALLI VILLAGE
2
GUNDLUPET TOWN
CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RACHAIAH S, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.388/2015 OF TERAKANAMBI
POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S
498A, 494, 323, 504, 506B OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Marriage between petitioner and second respondent came to be solemnized on 06.07.1994. On account of certain differences having arisen between them, they are residing separately and second respondent has lodged a complaint on 10.10.2014 against petitioner, which came to be registered in Crime No.142/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 402, 420 and 307 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.388/2015 by dropping Sections 420 and 307 3 IPC and adding Section 494 IPC. For quashing of said proceedings, petitioner is before this Court.
2. Heard Sri. Shiva Prasad Y.S, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. S. Rachaiah, Learned HCGP appearing for the State. Perused the records.
3. It is the contention of Sri. Shiva Prasad Y.S, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that averments made in the complaint do not constitute the offences and there is a clear bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C that police cannot institute a case against accused under Section 494 IPC unless jurisdictional Magistrate takes cognizance based on a private complaint and as such, the fact of cognizance being taken for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC is erroneous and as such, proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State would support initiation of 4 prosecution against petitioner by relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of USHABEN vs. KISHORBHAI CHUNILAL TALPADA & OTHERS reported in 2012 Crl.L.J 2234. As rightly pointed out by learned HCGP appearing for the State that issue relating to offence under Section 494 IPC, cognizance being taken is no more res-integra in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ushaben referred to herein supra, whereunder it has been held that if a complaint contains allegation about commission of offence under Section 498A IPC which is a cognizable offence apart from the allegation about commission of offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, then Court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report in respect of such non- cognizable offences also. It has been further held that no fetters can be put on the police preventing them from investigating the complaint which alleges offence under Section 498A IPC and also offence under Section 494 IPC. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court: 5
"11. A conjoint reading of the above provisions makes it clear that a complaint under Section 494 of the IPC must be made by the aggrieved person. Section 498A does not fall in Chapter XX of the IPC. It falls in Chapter XXA. Section 198A which we have quoted hereinabove, permits a court to take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 498A upon a police report of facts which constitute offence. It must be borne in mind that all these provisions relate to cognizance of the offence by the court.
12. Complaint is defined under Section 2(d) of the Code. The definition reads as under:
"2(d). "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation - A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non- cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant."
Explanation to Section 2(d) makes it clear that a report made by a police officer after investigation of a non-cognizable offence is to be treated as a complaint and the officer by whom such a report is made is to be deemed to be the complainant."
6
In the light of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ushaben's case referred to supra, contention of learned advocate appearing for petitioner cannot be accepted and same stands rejected. Consequently, criminal petition stands dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp