Karnataka High Court
Acchangi Mahesh vs The State on 21 January, 2021
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6071 OF 2016
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8053 OF 2015
IN CRL.P.NO.6071/2016:
BETWEEN
Acchangi Mahesh
S/o Basavegowda
Aged about 35 years
R/o Acchangi House
3rd Cross, Halasulege Post
Sakleshpura Taluk
Hassan District - 573134.
... Petitioner
(By Smt. Lubna, Advocate for
Sri. Dilraj Rohit Sequeira - Advocate)
AND
1. The State
By the Vinobha Nagar Police Station
Bangalore District
Represented by the
Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore - 560001.
2. Omkarappa
S/o N R Halagappa
Aged about 62 years
:2:
N R Halagappa and Sons
Aracanut Merchant
APMC Yard, Shimoga
R/a 100 Feet Road
Gandhinagar
Shimoga District - 574294.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R-1;
Sri S. B. Totad - Advocate for R-2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the
proceedings and the charge sheet in Spl.C.
C.No.588/2014 arising out of Cr.No.151/2014 of Vinobha
Nagar Police Station, now pending on the file of the Prl.
City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore for the offences
punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120(B), 399, 400,
402 r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.66(A) of IT Act, 2000; Sec.3,
8, 25(1-B)(1-A)(1-C) of Arms Act and Sec.3 of KCOCA -
Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act 2000, in so far
as the petitioner is concerned.
IN CRL.P.NO.8053/2015
BETWEEN
Ananda @ Navule Ananda @ Dhananjaya
S/o Yallapa
Aged about 37 years
R/a No.185, Anu Nivas
Nandini Layout, 5th Cross
Alkol, Shimoga
Permanent Resident of
Eranahailu, Huncha Village
Hosanagar Taluk
Shimoga - 577148.
... Petitioner
(By Smt. Lubna, Advocate for
Sri. Dilraj Rohit Sequeira - Advocate)
:3:
AND
1. The State
By the Vinobha Nagar Police Station
Bangalore District
Represented by the
Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore - 560001.
2. Omkarappa
S/o N R Halagappa
Aged about 62 years
N R Halagappa and Sons
Aracanut Merchant
APMC Yard, Shimoga
R/a 100 Feet Road
Gandhinagar
Shimoga District - 574294.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R-1;
Sri S. B. Totad - Advocate for R-2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the
proceedings and the charge sheet in Spl.C.C.No.588/2014
arising out of Cr.No.151/2014 of Vinobha Nagar Police
Station, now pending on the file of the Prl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bangalore for the offences punishable
under Sections 504, 506, 120(B), 399, 400, 402 r/w 149
of IPC and Sec.66(A) of IT Act, 2000; Sec.3, 8, 25(1-B)
(1-A)(1-C) of Arms Act and Sec.3 of KCOCA - Karnataka
Control of Organized Crime Act 2000, in so far as the
petitioner is concerned.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Admission,
this day, the court made the following:
:4:
ORDER
The petitions though listed for admission, are taken up for hearing and are disposed of by this common order, as both the petitions arise out of the same Cr.No.151/2014 of Vinobha Nagar Police Station. While Accused No.2 has filed Crl.P.No.6071/2016, Accused No.3 has preferred Crl.P.No.8053/2015. The respective petitioner in both these petitions have filed these petitions seeking to quash the proceedings and the charge sheet in Spl.C.C.No.588/2014 arising out of Cr.No.151/2014 of Vinobha Nagar Police Station, now pending on the file of the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120(B), 399, 400, 402 r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.66(A) of IT Act, 2000; Sections 3, 8, 25(1-B) (1-A) (1-C) of Arms Act, 1959 and Sec.3 of KCOCA - Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act 2000.
2. The case in Cr.No.151/2014 came to be registered by the Vinobhanagar P.S., Shimoga District for offences aforestated against the petitioners. Subsequent to :5: registration of the said crime by the Vinobhanagar P.S., Shimoga District, the I.O. has taken up the case for investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused before the Special Court having jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Accordingly, the case in Spl.CC No.588/2014 is pending before the Court of the Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge / Special Judge for KCOCA Cases in Bangalore. This petition is filed seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them in Special C.C.No.588/2014 arising out of Cr.No.151/2014 registered by the Vinobhanagar P.S.
3. Heard the learned counsel Smt. Lubna appearing for the learned counsel for petitioners / Accused Nos.2 and 3 and so also the learned HCGP for the State and the learned counsel Shri S.B. Totad for Respondent No.2 / complainant, who is assisting the learned HCGP in addressing arguments in the matter. Keeping in view Section 301 of the Cr.P.C., he is permitted to assist the learned HCGP.
:6:
4. It transpires from the case of the prosecution that based upon the complaint filed by the complainant, Vinobhanagar P.S., Shimoga District have registered the crime and then proceeded with the case for investigation. Whereas in the complaint, it reveals that the complainant is an Arecanut dealer and he has been doing his business at Shimoga, Mandi area. But on 1.6.2014 at around 7.30 p.m., his son Arvind, aged 31 years had received a phone call from a private number maintained, without disclosing the mobile number of the person who was calling. The said unknown person had asked him with regard to the name and address of the complainant. In this regard, a complaint was registered with the police. Based upon the complaint filed by Respondent No.2, the crime came to be registered and then proceeded with the case for investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused in detail for the offences reflected in the charge- sheet. The charge-sheet consists of the statement of witnesses and so also other materials collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation relating to the case in Cr.No.151/2014.
:7:
5. Whereas in these petition, the counsel for the petitioners / Accused Nos.2 and 3 seeks to quash the proceedings on the primary ground that Accused Nos.2 and 3 are innocent persons of the allegations made against them but they have been roped in the alleged crime by setting up a theory. Though the offences have been lugged against them, they did not participate with the other accused, despite of which charge-sheet has been laid by the Investigating Agency. However, the case of the prosecution suffers with a number of material infirmities and it does not constitute a prima facie case against the accused to prosecute. Further, these accused are in judicial custody since from the date of their arrest.
Further, the petitioner's / accused's rights have been violated as they have been lugged in this heinous offences under the KCOCA Act, 2000 even though no ingredients have been constituted and also other offences have been lugged against them. On all these premise and so also by virtue of Section 2(d) of the KCOCA Act, 2000, learned counsel seeks intervention by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If not, the petitioners / :8: accused being gravamen would be the sufferers in respect of the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. against the accused and also it requires for them to face trial. On all these premise, the learned counsel for the petitioner in both these petitions seeks to allow the petitions and consequently to quash the charge-sheet in entirety, laid by the I.O. against the accused, which is assigned as Spl.C.C.No.588/2014 pending before the Special Court at Bangalore.
6. Learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the allegations made in the complaint and so also the substances reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by the Vinobhanagar P.S. for the offences under the KCOCA Act, 2000, Arms Act, 1959 including for offences under Sections 504, 506, even Section 120B, 399, 400 and 402 read with Section 149 of the IPC and other offences under the IT Act. But in respect of all the offences lugged against the accused, the ingredients have been constituted and only then the Vinobhanagar P.S., Shimoga have registered the crime and proceeded with the case for investigation by the Investigating Agency in :9: Cr.No.151/2014 and secured the material documents and laid the charge-sheet against the accused persons. But the petitioner in both these petitions who are arraigned as Accused Nos.2 and 3 require to face trial along with the remaining accused in Spl.C.C.No.588/2014 in view of the fact that there are prima facie material against the accused to constitute the offences. But conclusion cannot be arrived at this stage, unless testing the materials and subjecting the witnesses to examination and cross- examination with regard to the prosecution case. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the accused. On all these premise, learned HCGP for the State seeks for dismissal of these petitions, so that the case in Spl.C.C.No.588/2014 pending before the Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Bangalore, be taken up for trial and then proceeded with the case against Accused Nos.2 and 3 as well along with the other accused in accordance with law.
7. In the context of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner in both these petitions : 10 : and so also learned HCGP for the State inclusive of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 who represents the complainant, it is relevant to refer that Respondent No.2 who is arraigned as the complainant before the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.588/2014 is a businessman at Shimoga, Mandi area being an arecanut dealer. But on 01.06.2014 at around 7.30 p.m., the complainant's son namely Arvind, aged about 31 years had received an unknown phone call from a private number without displaying the mobile number of the person who as calling and that person had asked the particulars of the complainant. The same has been stated in detail in the complaint filed by the complainant before the Vinobhanagar P.S., Shimoga District.
The case in Spl.C.C.No.588/2014 has been assigned and also it is pending for trial against Accused No.1 Bananje Raja @ B.R. and other accused. But the petitioner in these two petitions namely Accused No.2 / Acchangi Mahesh and Accused No.3 / Ananda @ Navule Ananda are said to be facing trial for offences under the IPC, 1860 and so also for the offences under the IT Act : 11 : inclusive of offences under the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3 of the KCOCA Act, 2000 along with Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 11. However, when once charge-sheet has been laid, it can be inferred that the I.O. has complied the stipulated condition under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. akin to Section 170 of the Cr.P.C., as sufficient evidence has been secured and then only the charge-sheet has been laid against the accused.
8. In the instant case, the I.O. has thoroughly investigated the case relating to Cr.No.151/2014 and thereafter laid the charge-sheet against the accused before the Special Court having jurisdiction, that is Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, KCOCA Special Court, Bangalore. However, the materials have been secured by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, relating to recording the statement of witnesses and so also the mahazar has been drawn in the presence of panch witnesses. These materials have been subjected to thorough test under the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and so also subjected to cross- examination of the witnesses in respect of the role of the : 12 : accused and also in respect of they committing the offences under Section 3 of the POCO Act, 2000 as well as other offences. Unless the materials secured by the Investigating Agency is tested under the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it cannot arise that there are no prima facie material against the accused. Therefore, it is said that though Section 482 Cr.P.C. for intervention in respect of inherent power could be exercised, but that power has to be exercised judicially, judiciously, cautiously and sparingly. But the present petitions are not cases coming under the category of this intervention keeping in mind the offences lugged against the accused. Therefore, it is said that accused are not deserving to seek the relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the Investigating Agency have secured the material documents and then laid the charge-sheet.
9. In the totality of the circumstances, at a cursory glance, it is said that sufficient material have been collected and only then the charge-sheet has been laid against the accused / petitioners. Therefore, the accused do not deserve for seeking quashing of the case in : 13 : Spl.C.C.No.588/2014 pending for trial. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Crl.P.6071/2016 and Crl.P.No.8053/2015 filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.2 and 3 are hereby rejected. Consequently, the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for KCOCA Cases, Bangalore where the case in Spl.C.C.No.588/2014 is pending, is directed to proceed further in accordance with law, where the accused are required to face trial.
Accordingly ordered.
Whatever observations made in this order shall not influence the mind of the Trial Court to proceed with the matter. However, the trial court here by directed to proceed in accordance with law.
As a consequence, I.A.No.1/2016 in both the petitions stand dismissed as they do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS