Karnataka High Court
D C Devaraj vs K C Krishna Murthy on 22 July, 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA
CRL.P.NO.4798 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
D.C. DEVARAJ
S/O. CHOWDAIAH GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
I.G. ROAD
CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
D.C.C. BANK
CHIKMAGALUR. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
K.C. KRISHNA MURTHY
MAJOR
S/O. K. CHANNAKESHAVA BHATTA
ADVOCATE,
CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. ...RESPONDENT.
(BY SRI.N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV.)
*******
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND
ISSUANCE OF PROCESS TO THE PETITIONER DATED
11.11.2005 IN C.C.NO.2263/2005 PASSED BY THE ADDL.CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DVN) & JMFC, CHIKMAGALUR.
-2-
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING : -
JUDGMENT
In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against him in C.C.No.2263/2005 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) & JMFC, Chikmagalur for the offences punishable under Sections 166 & 506 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C in P.C.R.No.422/03 before the Additional JMFC, Chikmagalur alleging the aforesaid offences against the petitioner in respect of the incident said to have occurred at about 1.00 p.m. on 5.12.2013, in the office of the petitioner herein where he was working as District Magistrate of Co-operative Societies, Chikmagalur. The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was presented, referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure to the police. The police after investigation -3- filed a 'B' summary report. The respondent filed protest petition. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged, recorded sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses and thereafter by impugned order held that sufficient materials are produced against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. Consequently, directed registration of criminal case and issue of summons to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the Crl.Revision Petition No.59/2006 before the Sessions Court, which came to be allowed by order dated 14.02.2007 and the complaint filed by the respondent was ordered to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein filed Crl.Revision Petition No.1280/2007 before this court, which came to be allowed vide order dated 16.07.2009 holding that revision petition before the Sessions Court, was not maintainable and it was open to the petitioner herein to invoke the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter while allowing the revision petition, this court reserved liberty to the petitioner herein to challenge the order of -4- the Magistrate by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. thereafter the petitioner has presented this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3. I have the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the reading of the complaint itself would prima facie indicate that the alleged act was during discharge of the official duty by the petitioner as such without a sanction under the provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance. Therefore, the order taking cognizance and issuing summons to the petitioner, who is a public servant is bad in law. He further contended that there has been inordinate delay in filing the complaint, which has not been explained and the present complaint is filed as a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the respondent and therefore, there are no bona fides on the part of the respondent in lodging the complaint. He further contented that the allegations made in the -5- complaint does not prima facie prove the ingredients of the offences alleged therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both the sides and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion, that there is no substance in any of the contentions urged. With regard to the question of sanction is concerned, the learned counsel relied upon the decision in ANJANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1992. The apex court in this decision has held that to attract the protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature. It is further held in this decision if an officer commits an act or omission in the course of his service but not in discharge of his duty and without any justification therefore, then the bar under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not attracted. It is further observed -6- that if on facts, it is prima facie known that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had reasonable connection with discharging of his duty then it must be held to be official to which applicability of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. cannot be disputed.
5. In the case on hand, according to the allegations made in the complaint lodged by the respondent, on the relevant date when the complainant entered the office of the District Registrar of Co- operative Societies, which was manned by the petitioner, the petitioner on seeing him flared up and started abusing him in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. It is no part of the duty of a public servant to abuse or threaten a person, who enters the public office. Prima facie, allegations made in the complaint indicate that the act complained against the petitioner is nothing to do with the discharge of his duty to attract the protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, at this stage, on account of want of sanction, prosecution cannot be -7- quashed. However, it is open to the petitioner to bring out the circumstances or evidence on record to show that he is entitled for the protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
6. The other contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner as noticed supra are in the nature of defence pleas, which are required to be substantiated at the trial of the case. On the basis of such defence pleas, this court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot quash the prosecution. The parties are required to afford opportunities to place the evidence on record in support of such contentions against the respondent. Therefore, this ground cannot be a basis for quashing the prosecution. With reference to the contentions that the allegations made in the complaint, does not attract the ingredients of any offence alleged, I do not find any substance. Reading of the complainant as a whole, prima facie indicates the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 166 and 506 of IPC. -8- Therefore, I find no justifiable grounds warranting exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. The trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made during the course of this order, while disposing of the matter.
SD/-
JUDGE SS/NG*