Karnataka High Court
Mr. Rangaswamy vs Mr. N. Manjunath on 12 September, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1868 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
Mr.Rangaswamy,
S/o Hichappa,
Aged about 53 Years,
Police Sub Inspector,
Formerly at Krishnarajapet
City P.S.,
Krishnarajapet Taluk,
MANDYA DIST. - 571 426.
Presently R/o Nonavinekere
Police Quarters, Nonavinakere,
Tiptur Taluk,
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER.
(By Sri.P.N.Hegde, Adv.)
AND:
Mr.N.Manjunath,
S/o N.Narasegowda,
Aged about 39 Years,
Keremegala Koppalu Village,
Bukinakere Hobli,
Krishnarajapet Taluk,
MANDYA DIST. - 571 426.
2
Presently R/o No.2888/1,
Old Hemagiri Road,
Near Kaivalyeshwara
Community Hall,
Hemavathi Extension,
Krishnarajapete Town,
Krishnarajapete Taluk,
MANDYA DIST. - 571 426. ... RESPONDENT.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.9/2014 pending on the file of Civil
Judge & JMFC at K.R.Pet.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner approached this Court and sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.9/2014 pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC at K.R.Pet.
2. Respondent herein being the complainant, lodged a private complaint in PCR No.2/2013 making certain allegations against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 217, 218, 219, 323, 324, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. On the basis of such complaint, the 3 learned Magistrate took cognizance and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and thereafter came to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials to issue process against the accused and accordingly vide order dated 06.01.2014 the learned Magistrate issued process against the accused, petitioner herein. The said order is in question before this Court.
3. On careful perusal of the complaint averments and also after hearing the learned counsel, counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that there are certain allegations which attract the act of the accused person while discharging his duty as a public servant. Therefore Section 197 of Cr.P.C., comes into play. Without there being any valid sanction order, no complaint can be filed and no cognizance can be taken against the accused persons. Secondly, learned counsel contended that at the time of incident as alleged by the complainant in his complaint, the accused was not at all present. He would like to rely upon the station house diary of that particular station in which the petitioner was working, to 4 show that the accused was not at all there at that particular point of time in the police station.
4. In this background, the complaint averments is seen. The complaint averments disclose that the respondent herein also lodged a complaint in Crime No.225/2012 for various offences under the Indian Penal Code. A counter case appears to have also been filed by the above said party in Crime No.226/2012 before the K.R.Pet City Police Station in which the present petitioner was working as a Police Sub Inspector. It is the allegation that in order to favour one of the parties in Crime No.226/2012, the petitioner alleged to have forced the complainant in Crime No.225/2012 to give further statement so as to file the charge sheet and also to change the provisions of law under Section 384 of IPC. He also declined to change the provisions of law from 384 of IPC to 392 of IPC. In this regard, it is also alleged that the accused caught hold the neck of the complainant and abused him in filthy language. At this stage, I do not want to make any observation so far as the factual aspects are concerned. It would suffice to say that all those allegations traversed in 5 the complaint are subject to contest before the Trial Court. The documents produced before this Court though relevant but at this stage, in my opinion while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot rely upon those documents for the purpose of quashing the entire proceedings. The private complaint is to be dealt by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code as contemplated under Sections 244 and 245 before framing the charges against the accused. In a criminal complaint, the complainant has to lead evidence before framing of the charges against the accused persons. The complainant has to be examined himself and he has to examine all the witnesses on his side and produce all the materials he proposes, at the time of giving evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. In that context, the accused has also got opportunity to counter those evidence and also documents produced and if necessary during the course of cross examination, witnesses can also be confronted with the documents produced by the accused. Thereafter the learned Magistrate on overall analysis of the entire materials on 6 record, consider the case of the prosecution and then pass an order either framing charges against the accused or to discharge the accused.
5. Section 244 of Cr.P.C., meticulously, if it is read, it says that when, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Sub-clause (2) also says the Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
6. Section 245 further puts the responsibility on the Magistrate that, if, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge the accused. The wordings used in Section 245 are altogether different from the wordings used in 7 Sections 239 and 227 of Cr.P.C. Under Sections 239 and 227 there is no need for the learned Magistrate to appreciate the evidence on record in order to ascertain whether it is a case for conviction or acquittal. But in Section 245, more responsibility is cast upon the learned Magistrate to ascertain whether the evidence given by the prosecution, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction, then only he has to frame charges or otherwise he should discharge the accused. Therefore while recording evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., the accused will also get opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. In the above said circumstances, the petitioner who has produced the documents before this Court, has got ample opportunity to produce the same before the Trial Court at the time of recording evidence of the prosecution witness under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., and seek for his discharge under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. Therefore at this stage in my opinion it may not be proper for this Court to quash the entire proceedings relying upon some documents which are extraneous to the present proceedings and not produced before the Trial Courts.
8
7. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the Police Officer, he will be unnecessarily harassed. Therefore the Trial Court may be directed to expedite the matter and dispose of the matter as early as possible. I find no unreasonableness in such request by the learned counsel. Hence the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, particularly the application to be filed by the accused for his discharge within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
AGV.