Sri Yellappa vs Sri P Venkateshan on 27 January, 2009

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Yellappa vs Sri P Venkateshan on 27 January, 2009

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT   

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY 'OF-&IA5ﬁ.§§}A[I§YV.'V§0'(V'.5:9 
BEFC}RI:§x      'I V'  
THE I~ION'BLE Mré.--g.I:p*s;:'Ic E N__.   
CREMINAL .PET1:f1Q'féi"L1N¢;4p24)2097  ii

BETWEEN 2
1. Sri Yellappa _ .
S/o. Latc:S1'i Nan;app9.'«
Aged abtJéu1_ :'*52 yfzartis -V 
2. Smt.  . "    :
WI '!'*?11am3=*i .  "
Aged --ai},eut years _
'=._Bo:_;:;1 .;~;a_:'VN¢'.492,v..§:11ikka1akshmaiah Laycmt
Hosur Road.   ..  
Baz1gal<;>r¢:'+S60'O2§--.._ ' ...Pc't:it:ione1s

(By; S'ri _M.V;:c'131§h;;adréiah Associates, Advocates)

T "Sz*iP;vYénkateshan
«A "sfﬂ.  Rajulu
Ageéijaijout 48 years
 Eia; [No.7, Kaveri Layout, Suddaguntepalya
.. Darmaram Coiicgc Post
Eéingaiore-560 O29.

. 5 Sri Rahui Fcxtnandes
Sic. Paul Fcmandes
Aged about 2'? yaars
R/a: No.610, 4*" Cmss, K.R.Ga1dcn,
Mmzugesh Palya
Ba1:1ga.io1'c--36(} O17.

 



3. Inspector of Police
Air Port Police Station

Bangalore.    u  'V

{By Mls. Bangalore Law Assoeiatelvs,  -£5:  
S. G.Bhagavan, Advocate for R1;  B.Ba1_akri_shna, 'ivi_£CC«P for-R3} * ._

This petition is filed unde:*'v--eei:t;ion 4&2 ex-.:3;cI;»..35ray:§:g to  A

quash entire proceedings in "vC.ri:11e No. Q1313/20537 (PCR
No.1 1133/200?), on the file of 1V.Ad'iIL.'*C.'M_.M. , Bangalgfe 35 etc.

This petition  'M g'   this day, the
Court made the fc_>11oWing:_   V '   

M _'    A
The  was referred to {H
   Cr.P.C., consequent
to  *  Crime No.143/2007

against peﬁtieﬁeifs " two other accused for oﬂiences

 épieeéisixabiex uneier"""sections 420, 12043, 468, 465, 471,

    IPC. Thexefore, petitioners are before this

 "

 The learned Counsel for petitioners is absent. 3 have

 the learned HCGP for State and S13' S.(.-'tﬁhagavan,

" i learned Counsel for i-respondent.  i

3. As could be seen fmm the complaint. and garious documents refeneé to therein, there are transactions relating to purchase of Iaiicis 4 eomplaitlant and petitioners.

4. It is the contention of civil nature. The ieamed M'ag:jis1;rateA.iarij;ho1:Ti'-,;-zigielieaeeion of' V mind has police by invoking «' thiswﬂouxt in a decision reported in 1999.3; Cr1..«I..;eJA§A' 'ﬁn the case of in the case of Gueucfaﬂh a.iidvothe1s Vs. M.S.Krishna Bhat mad ~ ., ~h_eId:- """ H Let us ﬁrst consider whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to refer the H for police investigation under Section 156(3), C3213'. «:3.

156. Paiice Oﬁce-r's power to investigate cognjzable Cases (1) Any caﬁcer in charge of a police station may, without the elder of a '\j--\L -~.

7.me1f:ti6iiec¥.._ " " . e ' ' uc:}gI1izaV1i)§evoﬁ"e:1L1ce Without the older of a V or Without a formal ﬁrst infozmation T. The police are entitled to investigate ' eogiiizeble oﬁenee either on infomiation under A " knowledge or from other reiiabie infonnation. This statutmy right ts investigate Magistrate, investigate any cognizable ease which a Court having jurisdiction over the area within the limits of such station would h§;1§'e""'e._ power to inquire into or 'by under p1~ovisjx7:1;i4;~;,VV§::$i;e:4"Ve~ "

Chapter XIII. 1. ' {2} No proceeding of a oﬁcer _ such case shall at any _ question on the was one which such oﬂicer» seas "1;ost under this "

b empowered. under tggrdezfsuch' sirzixzﬁrestigattioxi as above * of Section 156 confers on 31¢" gaelice power to investigate a Seetkin 154 or on their own motion, on their ctoglizable offence cannot be interfered with or cenubiied by the Courts inciudixlg the High Court Itisopentcthe Courttotak ornotto . i wef:-r.

l\r V '1'«?3--,--v.C.{§VP.C. sub-section (3) to refer and direct the _ ther€:«.. is" a.V1jestx_3'ction on the Magistrate before x 'V V--t,hVe police to investigate under sub- _ . (3), Magistrate should fomz an 3 T. "oihat the complaint ﬁleci by the ' before him discloses a cognizable n T " complaint does not disclose oognizable oﬁence, H the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order police take action when the police prefer a charge aﬁer izxvestigation. But the Cotxrfs "

does not begin unﬁi the charge sheet-'lie:

Under subsection (2) can :inv_e*sﬁge:t_e, _ offence taking the raatterﬂiito . T offence although ultimately ehafrges arefiled a non-cognizable V» .oﬂ'e_nce "

investigating a cognizable"'offeI:;ce, are not debarred #11011- cognizaEt3le;1ieoﬂ"ep;;:e utifiihe same facts and?' in<:e:ua;-mg it"'ijg;.eAVt}:f:f.o--re1_*)o:'ts to be ﬂied by to :31 cognizable oﬁence. But o ﬁ.?t.:-'1:éc.:. When the aiiegaﬁon made in the investigation 'antler sub--section (3). In the present: case, the learned Magistrate without applying his mind had directed an investigation JV e4&\»~-9~"'i~-

:v¢%iihou§:,iuﬁ§:giicﬁc:;g;- v.I;§'r;'a'§:e also found in this base' Vtiiaf'-~ ﬁled by the .-- .Vﬁdes"%:_net1 maliciously with an uiterior " :g;uo'i:is_re vengeance on the accused gtrudge. when such is the A which is disclosed from the " ..ﬁ1--ate1ia1s on record, it is not oniy empowers this is the duty of this Court to nip such an compiaints making bald allegations just A' that the alleged accused are harassed -1~ police who have no other go except to % as ordered by the Magistxatel' '-7IT1'1e]:fcfo1"eT,'V:vi'_£ mandatory for the Magstzraite 7]' to the allegations made the" .

only cases which .offeIiee;'1.; Magistrate gets. ju1'i:sdieAﬁo1i'_ to "omer./i an investigation by 'polio; not take cognizance of the case, the leanzeci-~_ Véﬁsplgdng his under Section order is therefore, com1§1ai:;a'1w.ts".'Ais.. jméiﬁfcsuy tainted with mala to spike them due to private and to interfeze in the interest of justiw, but it investigation in the bud. The learned Single N QQ/,wWJe_ Judge was, therefore, right in allowing the petitions and quashing the investigation in one of the complaint referred by the MagiSi:"e;1':t_: _._ A4 to the police. We &d that there is no M these Writ appeals. Th€S€""'IE7Ifit alVI"e_'_f_ accordingly dismissed with eo$t_'o{ :2e;es;ooo;--' A each ofthe writ 319133313X. « ll 1 l e. 2: is obvious from thel"as§eraaenttsoif_eo11lV;'aIai11t that there are series of ﬁ2fl--S¥Elt3ﬁO;l1S purchase of lands between the com}}lai1A;;_a1lt..Va1:l:v_(V1 fepeﬁtieeeee. The filing of complaint legal notice. The learned eapplioégﬁon of mm' (1 and without ' oflleomplaint has zeferred the matte;-ee -;en*eqietgeeeej:l'pe:iec: by ievoleing section 156(3) Cr.C. Tha'ere:fore,.* refeféiice under section 156(3) C;r.P.C§., ' V' QNV' .;,p?i7be'v6,?1Sfam' I pass the fol1owi13g:~ GRDIER ' AA , 'fl§e yetition is accepted. The impugned order of "'V_:tefe1'ence and consequent registration of case are set aside. an)» $4 H The matter is remand:-d to the learned reconsideration of «:;:o1npiam' t "

presentation. in the light of obserir£r£:ic§'I1:+; and in accordance with law. L Tudgé

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court