Karnataka High Court
K.Vishnukumar vs Smt.Parvathi @ Parvathamma on 1 October, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.NO. 25653/2015 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
K. VISHNUKUMAR
S/O LATE K.V. KRISHNAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING IN A HOUSE BEARING
DOOR NO.775/F-26
FIRST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS
RAMANUJA ROAD
AGRAHARA, FORT MOHALLA
MYSURU-570 005.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K. VISHNUKUMAR-PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. SMT. PARVATHI @PARVATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O NAGARAJU
RESIDING IN A HOUSE
BEARING DOOR NO.593/2,
3RD RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA
CHAVADI ROAD
2ND CROSS, FORT MOHALLA
MYSURU-570 005.
2. NAGARAJU
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2
RESIDING IN A HOUSE
BEARING DOOR NO.593/2,
3RD RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA
CHAVADI ROAD
2ND CROSS, FORT MOHALLA
MYSURU-570 005.
3. PRASANNA
APC 398, ARMOUR POLICE
CONSTABLE, CITY ARMED RESERVE
POLICE, MYSURU-570 009.
4. SYED ADIL PASHA
APC-190, ARMOUR POLICE CONSTABLE
CITY ARMED RESERVE POLICE
MYSURU-570 009.
5. YUVARAJ
APC-145, ARMOUR POLICE CONSTABLE
CITY ARMED RESERVE POLICE
MYSURU-570 009.
6. C. BHAGYA
W/O RAGHAVENDRA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING IN A HOUSE
NEAR SRI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE
BOMMANAYAKANAHALLI
HOSAKOPPLU POST
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201.
7. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KRISHNARAJA POLICE STATION
FORT MOHALLA
MYSURU-570 005.
8. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER
MIRZA ROAD, NAZARBAD MOHALLA
MYSURU-570 009.
3
9. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MYSURU CITY
MIRZA ROAD, NAZARBAD MOHALLA
MYSURU-570 009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R7 TO R9;
SRI. N. NAJUNDA SWAMY, ADV., FOR R1 & R2;
R3 SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.04.2016
NOTICE TO R4 & R5 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT;
VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6.2016, NOTICE TO R6 IS
HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE POLICE NOTICE DATED 16.04.2015 AT ANNEXURE-D
AND TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY POLICE
DATED 16.4.2015 AT ANNEXURE-E AND TO ISSUE A WRIT
TO SUITABLE NATURE OR TO PASS ORDER OF SUITABLE
DIRECTING THE R-7 TO FILE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN JURISDICTIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT WITH
RESPEC TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 15.4.2015 AT ANNEXURE-C AND COMPLAINT
DATED 26.5.2015 AT ANNEXURE -G AND TO
INVESTIGATE AS PER SUB SECTION 3 OF SECTION 156 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Petitioner who claims to be an Advocate practicing at Mysore has sought for quashing the notice dated 16.04.2015- Annexure-D and endorsement dated 16.04.2015- Annexure-E and has also sought for a direction to the 7th respondent to file a report with the jurisdictional Magistrate Court with respect to the complaint dated 26.05.2015- Annexure -G and to investigate the said complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri. K.Vishnukumar- petitioner appearing in person, Smt. H.C. Kavitha, learned HCGP appearing for respondents- 7 to 9, Sri. H.C. Nanjundaswamy, learned Advocate appearing for respondents- 1 and 2. Respondent-3 served and unrepresented. Service of notice on Respondents-4, 5 and 6 has been held sufficient by order dated 23.04.2016 and 30.06.2016 respectively. 5
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he had lodged a complaint before respondents- 7, 8 and 9 on 15.04.2015 and 26.05.2015 and same has not been registered though the said complaint would disclose cognizable offence. It is further alleged that petitioner lodged a complaint before 9th respondent on 26.05.2015 alleging respondents- 3 to 5 having conspired with others, administered poison into alcoholic drinks consumed by the petitioner which had resulted in the jurisdictional police registering Crime No.198/2014 and on 28.12.2014 petitioner had been to the mess run by respondents- 1 and 2 for the purposes of having Tiffin and after consuming the Tiffin, he ordered for milk and first respondent served the milk which was consumed by petitioner to an extent of one sip and petitioner felt that milk was bitter and when enquired with respondents -1 and 2, they gave evasive answer and petitioner felt that poison had been administered to the 6 milk with an intention to kill him and as such, without consuming the same, he went out of the mess.
4. Petitioner further contends that on 04.01.2015 he went to the said mess and found that second respondent was alone and in the presence of the petitioner, he removed 7 to 8 tablets from plastic strip kept in a plastic box in the table and went inside and made sound of powdering something by using a stone, to create an impression in the mind of the petitioner that second respondent had administered poison into food/ milk, which tablets are used for controlling high blood pressure and thereby instigated the petitioner to lodge a complaint against second respondent, though second respondent had not administered the poison and this was with an intention to protect the act of first respondent who had tried to administer poison into the milk consumed by petitioner on 28.12.2014. 7
5. It is also the contention of petitioner that during January, 2014 two youths had followed him and they were having white coloured plastic wire around 3 to 4 feet in length and petitioner suspected that they had come to murder him. Hence, petitioner claims to have intimated the Director General and Inspector General of Police on 20.02.2015 that persons who are accused in Crime No.198/2014 were attempting to murder him. Petitioner is also said to have lodged a complaint on 23.03.2015 with seventh respondent which was not received and after running from pillar to post on 15.04.2015, complaint came to be received. However, seventh respondent has not registered the FIR though complaint discloses cognizable offences punishable under Sections 307 and 328 of IPC. A notice dated 16.04.2015- Annexure-D came to be issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain details which has been questioned in this writ petition.
8
6. It is the contention of petitioner appearing in person that jurisdictional police, though have received the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 15.04.2015- Annexure-C, without any justifiable ground, they have failed to register the FIR but, on the other hand, petitioner has been issued with interrogatories and as such he prays for quashing of the same.
7. Learned Advocate appearing for respondents have submitted that in order to ascertain the factual aspects, petitioner has been issued with police notice and instead of replying to the same, present writ petition has been filed on false and frivolous grounds and as such, they have sought for dismissal of the same.
8. Having heard the petitioner appearing in person, learned HCGP appearing for respondents-7 to 9 and learned Advocate appearing for respondents- 1 9 and 2, it could be seen that during the period 2012- 2013, by virtue of Court order, petitioner was provided gun man and respondents- 3 to 5 had worked as gunman to the petitioner. Alleging that respondents- 3 to 5 had conspired with others and had administered poison to the alcoholic drinks consumed by petitioner, a complaint has already been lodged by the petitioner which has been registered as Crime No.198/2014. It is the apprehension of petitioner that persons who have been accused in Crime No.198/2014 are attempting to take away his life and as such, when he went to the mess owned by respondents-1 and 2, they have conspired to kill him. It is on these lines, complaint has been lodged on 15.04.2015- Annexure-C by the petitioner. Hence, jurisdictional police who have received the complaint have issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish the details as indicated in the impugned notice. By no stretch of imagination, the said exercise of power can be held 10 either as illegal or excessive. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LALITHA KUMARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 has held to the following:
"120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry."11
9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, when the facts on hand are examined, it would disclose that petitioner has expressed apprehension that respondents 1 and 2 who were running a mess had conspired with persons who are accused in Crime No. 198/2014, to take away his life by poisoning the food. Hence, the jurisdictional police have issued the notice dated 16.04.2015- Annexure-D calling upon the petitioner to furnish the details with regard to the earlier incidents which cannot be said as not required for the purposes of investigation. In that view of the matter, no infirmity can be found in the action taken by the jurisdictional police in issuing the impugned notice.
10. It is needless to state that on petitioner furnishing the information/details as sought for by the jurisdictional police under the impugned notice dated 12 16.04.2015- Annexure-D, same shall be considered and steps to be taken in accordance with law.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Writ petition is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE ru