Karnataka High Court
Sri Udaya Simha N vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2020
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
WRIT PETITION NO.52820/2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.UDAYA SIMHA.N
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
SON OF LATE NARASIMHA SWAMY
RESIDIGN AT NO.910, "SIMHADRI"
16TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.R.MOHAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE-3
2. SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR HIREMATH
AGED 62 YEARS
SON OF LATE GURULINGAIAH
RETIRED IN-CHARGE
DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION AND
MEMBER SECRETARY
SELECTION COMMITTEE OF APP & AGP
NO.B-2, "SHRAVANTHI BLOCK",
2
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALAL
BENGALURU AND
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
BHAVASARA MANGALA
KARYALAYA, BELGAUM ROAD
DHARWAD CITY, DHARWAD
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH.S.ARABATTI. SPL.PP FOR R1
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.03.2020 R2 IS DELTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PORTION OF THE
ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-H IN PCR
NO.32/2015 ON THE FILE OF XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU URBAN
(CCH NO.24) BENGALURU CITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3
3. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru City whereby, the Special Judge has partially accepted the 'B' summary report filed by Investigating Officer and has issued a direction to conduct further investigation with reference to the third allegation made in the complaint regarding the swearing ceremony conducted at a private hotel.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of various aspects of malpractice in conducting the examination for selection of APP and Government Advocates vide notification of the year 2012, two private complaints were filed before the Special Court and the same were referred for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. In respect of PCR No.37/2014, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Special Court, whereas 4 in respect of PCR No.32/2015, the Investigating Officer submitted 'B' report.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.861/2015 C/w W.P.No.44114/2015 dated 28.01.2016 whereby the Investigating Officer namely the Lokayukta Police was directed to conduct a comprehensive investigation and to submit a final report in respect of both cases as expeditiously as possible. In view of this direction, Investigating Officer was required to submit comprehensive report before the Special Court, instead the Investigating Officer has submitted a 'B' summary report in respect of one of the two cases.
6. Though in the report submitted in PCR No.32/2015 it is stated that in respect of Investigation conducted in the complaint arising out of PCR No.37/2014, charge sheet has already submitted before the Court and therefore, Investigating Officer has submitted 'B' summary 5 report in the complaint arising out of PCR No.32/2015, yet, on going through the said report, I find from the material collected during the investigation, that there is prima-facie material is available making out the ingredients of the offence alleged the accused insofar as the process of selection is concerned. The final opinion of the Investigating Officer in this regard reads thus:
"CAwªÀÄ «±ÉèõÀuÉ :-
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀU¼ À À §UÉÎ PÀÆ®PÀÄAµÀªÁV vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滹 J¦¦/Jf¦ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÃgÀ «ÄøÀ¯Áw & ¸ÀªÀÄvÀ¼À «ÄøÀ¯ÁwAiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ vÁ¼É ªÀiÁr £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV ¥Àw æ AiÉÆAzÀÄ ªÀUð À PÀÆÌ ¤¢üðµÀÖ ¥Àr¹zÀ ±ÉÃPÀqÁªÁgÀÄ «ÄøÀ¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr CAwªÀÄ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À CAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹zÀÞ¥r À ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛz.É F ¥ÀPÀægt À zÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÄÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ºÀÄzÉÝU¼ À À £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è 50% gÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀUð À zÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÁV ªÀiÁvÀæ «ÄøÀ¯Áw EgÀĪÀÅzÁV ¨sÁ«¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É DzÀgÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀUð À zÀ ºÀÄzÉÝU½ À UÉ «ÄøÀ¯ÁwAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥Àª æ ÀUð À zÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ ¸Àà¢üð¹ DAiÉÄÌ ºÉÆAzÀ§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É F £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥ÀQæ A æ iÉÄAiÀÄ°è PÉ®ªÀÅ D¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ EvÀgÉ ¥Àª æ ÀUð À PÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀÝgÀÆ ºÉa£ Ñ À CAPÀ ºÉÆA¢zÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀUð À zÀ PÉÆÃmÁzÀ°è CªÀg£ À ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É C®èzÃÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥ÀQæ A æ iÉÄAiÀÄ°è PÉ®ªÀÅ GvÀÛgÀ 6 ¥ÀwPæ ÉU¼ À À CAPÀU¼ À £ À ÀÄß w¢ÝgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §zÀ° GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀwPæ A É iÀÄ£ÀÄß §zÀ°¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆÃ¥À ¸Á©ÃvÁzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ CAwªÀÄ CAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ºÉ¸g À ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuA É iÀiÁUÀÄvÀÛzA É iÉÄà ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå CµÉÖà EgÀÄvÀÛz.É F J¯Áè PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ F ¥ÀPæ Àgt À zÀ°è «ÄøÀ¯Áw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªA É § DgÉÆÃ¥À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÈqs¥ À ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
J¦¦/Jf¦ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸ÀA§AzsÀ £Àq¢ É zÉ J£À߯ÁzÀ GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀwPæ ÉU¼ À À°è CAPÀU¼ À £ À ÀÄß w¢ÝgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆ® GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀwPæ U É ¼ À £ À ÀÄß §zÀ°¹gÀĪÀ CPÀæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÃÉ ²æà ºÉZï.n.gÀ« ©£ï wªÀÄäAiÀÄåUËqÀ, ªÀQîgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUg À À «¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA 59/2014 gÀ°è ¥ÀPæ Àgt À zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É ¸Àzj À ¥ÀPæ g À t À zÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆAqÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj ²æà J¸ï.r.ªÉAPÀl¸Áé«Ä, r.ªÉÊ.J¸ï.¦gÀªg À ÄÀ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ ZÀAzÀ± æ ÃÉ Rgï.f.»gÉêÀÄoÀ, £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄæ 61 d£À J¦¦/Jf¦ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è DAiÉÄÌUÉÆAqÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀwPæ ÉU¼ À ° À è CAPÀU¼ À £ À ÀÄß w¢ÝgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄæ ºÉZÄÀ ѪÀÄj GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀwPæ U É ¼ À £ À ÀÄß §zÀ°¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ ¸Á©ÃvÁzÀ PÁgÀt WÀ£À ¹¹ºÉZï - 24 £Éà £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÉàõÀ¯ï ¹.¹.£ÀA.305/2017 gÀ°è «ZÁgÀuA É iÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛz.É C®èzÃÉ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.59/2014gÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ J¦¦/Jf¦ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è DAiÉÄÌUÉÆAqÀ J¯Áè C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À GvÀÛg¥ À w À æU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ªÀ±¥ À r À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, wzÀÄÝ¥r À ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ GvÀæg¥ À v À PÀæ U É ¼ À £ À ÀÄß J¥sï.J¸ï.J¯ï.UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àqz É ÀÄ zÉÆõÀgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ 7 ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, WÀ£À ¹¹ºÉZï - 24 £Éà £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÉàõÀ¯ï ¹.¹.£ÀA.305/2017 gÀ°è «ZÁgÀuA É iÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛz.É DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ ¥Àª æ ÀiÁt ªÀZ£ À À ¸ÀªÀiÁgÀA¨sª À £ À ÀÄß DAiÉÆÃf¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ°è ¤zsð À j¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgA À vÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÀiÁgÀA¨sÀª£ À ÀÄß ¢ ¨É¯ï SÁ¸ÀV ºÉÆÃmɯï£À°è £Àq¹ É zÀÄÝ, ¸Àzj À ªÉZÀª Ñ À£ÀÄß 13£Éà ºÀtPÁ¹£À DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ¯ÉPÀÌ ²Ã¶ðPÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ZÉPï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É F PÁgÀt¢AzÀ SÁ¸ÀV ºÉÆÃmÉÃ¯ï £À°è ¥Àª æ ÀiÁtªÀZÀ£À ¸ÀªÀiÁgÀA¨sª À À£ÀÄß DAiÉÆÃf¹ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆPÀ̸PÀ ÉÌ £ÀµÀÖªÀÅAlĪÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JA§ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀÅ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÈqs¥ À ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
£ÉêÀÄPÁw C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£A
É iÀÄ°è C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄRå ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ
CAPÀU¼
À £
À ÀÄß ªÉ¨ï ¸ÉÊmï £À°è ¥ÀPæ Àn¸À¨ÃÉ PÉA§ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄæ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÄRå ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CAPÀU¼ À £ À ÀÄß CªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ w½¸À®Ä £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸À«Äw ¤zsÁðgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛz.É DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄRå ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ CAPÀU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ªÉ¨ï ¸ÉÊmï £À°è ¥ÀPæ Àn¹®èªA É § DgÉÆÃ¥À zÀÈqs¥ À ÀqÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CA±ÀU¼ À À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è F ¥ÀPæ g À ÀtzÀ°è "©" CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß CAVÃPÀj¸À®Ä WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ªÉâ¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
F ¥ÀPæ ÀgÀtzÀ°è WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ © CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¤UÀ¢vÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¥sÁgÀA £ÀA.159gÀ£ÀÄß ¹§âA¢ 8 ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ eÁj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV, ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Àzj À ¥sÁgÀA £ÀA.159 gÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¸À®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É DzÀÝjAzÀ ¥sÁgÀA £ÀA.159gÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÀt CAZÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ eÁjªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É CzÀgÀ ¹éÃPÀÈw PÁqÀð£À C¸À®£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀ°è ¤ªÉâ¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
7. In the wake of this final report, Investigating Officer could not have submitted 'B' summary report, as the findings of the Investigating Officer clearly make out the ingredients of offences under Section 13(c) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In that view of the matter, 'B' summary report submitted before the Court being contrary to the material collected during the investigation, the same could not have been be accepted.
8. The procedure to be followed by the learned Magistrate while considering the 'B' summary report has been discussed in 'KAMALAPATHI TRIVEDI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL' reported in [1980] SCC [2] 91 which is followed by this Court in 'DR. RAVI KUMAR v. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA 9 AND ANOTHER' reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725 and it is held as under:-
"5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is well recognized principle of law that, once the police submit 'B' Summary Report and protest petition is filed to the same, irrespective of contents of the protest petition, the court has to examine the contents of 'B' Summary Report so as to ascertain whether the police have done investigation in a proper manner or not and if the court is of the opinion that the investigation has not been conducted properly, the court has got some options to be followed, which are,-
i) "The court after going through the contents of the investigating papers, filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., is of the opinion that the investigation has not been done properly, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Police to file the charge sheet however, the Court may direct the Police for re or further investigation and submit a report, which power is inherent under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, but before taking cognizance such exercise has to be done. This my view is supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex 10 Court in a decision reported in AIR 1968 S.C. 117 between Abhinandan Jha and Dinesh Mishra (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court reported in (1980) SCC 91 between Kamalapati Trivedi and State of West Bengal.
ii) If the court is of the opinion that the material available in the 'B' Summary Report makes out a cognizable case against the accused and the same is sufficient to take cognizance, and to issue process, then the court has to record its opinion under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., and the Court has got power to take cognizance on the contents of 'B' Summary Report and to proceed against the accused, by issuance of process.
iii) If the court is of the opinion that the 'B' Summary Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected, then by expressing its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of 'B' report, the court has to reject the 'B' Summary Report.
iv) After rejection of the 'B' Summary Report, the court has to look into the private complaint or 11 Protest Petition as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the Private complaint or in the Protest Petition constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter, provide opportunity to the complainant to give Sworn Statement and also record the statements of the witnesses if any on the side of the complainant as per the mandate of Sec.200 Cr.P.C."
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the proposition of law emerging from the above decision, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge insofar as accepting 'B' report in respect of the first and second allegations are concerned, are set aside. Learned Special Judge is directed to consider the entire 'B' summary report along with charge sheet in Spl.C.C.No.305/2017 and shall proceed in accordance with law. In terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.861/2015 C/w W.P.No.44114/2015 , the final 'B' report dated 02.11.2018 filed in respect of the 12 complaint arising out of PCR No.32/2015 shall be treated as part and parcel of the charge sheet filed in PCR No.37/2014.
Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM