Karnataka High Court
Sri K V Ramani vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5718/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI K.V.RAMANI
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.162, 32ND MAIN
JAYANAGARA 4TH BLOCK EAST
BANGALORE - 560 011. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJAY J.NANDALIKE, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY POLICE INSPECTOR
SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHETHAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 18.03.2017 PASSED BY THE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN
S.C.NO.177/2014 (VIDE ANNEXURE-C) AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER HEREIN OF THE OFFENCES
ALLEGED U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29/06/2018, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 18.3.2017 passed by the LXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangaluru (CCH-66) in Sessions Case No.177/2014 produced as per Annexure 'C' and consequently, discharge the petitioner-accused No.5 of the offences alleged under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that, petitioner's son and one Sri.Sathya.C.Muthu (now deceased) and one Sri.Ashok T entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 7.4.2011 for the supply of BPO Voice. As per the said MoU, it was mutually agreed that Sri.Sathya.C.Muthu and Sri.Ashok.T would be organizing and supplying BPO Voice projects to the petitioner's son and upon successful completion of the project, Sri.Sathya.C.Muthu and Sri.Ashok T would be paid a sum of Rs.26 lakhs. It was also mutually agreed vide the same MoU that any breach or failure to perform the contract by either party contemplated a situation 3 where the party failing to fulfill its obligations as per the contract would be liable to pay a penalty of Rs.30 lakhs. Since the deceased Sri.Sathya.C.Muthu failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract, he was therefore liable to pay money to the petitioner's son as stated above.
Such being the case, petitioner had gone to collect rent of ground floor of his house at Kumaraswamy layout on 13.5.2012 wherein he was summoned to Srirampura police station (the respondent herein) on the ground that an alleged First Information Report was registered inter alia against the petitioner and his son under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code based upon a purported complaint dated 18.6.2011 given by one Sri.Chandrashekar on the basis of an alleged suicide note stating that Sri.Sathya C.Muttu had killed himself due to financial pressure naming the petitioner, his son and others as accused. Pertinently, on 11.6.2011, the said Sri.Chandrashekar had given a complaint reporting the death of his son and also stating that he do not suspect anyone. Again, subsequently on 18.6.2011 he filed another complaint based on the death note. On the basis 4 of the said FIR, charge sheet was filed by the respondent and thereafter, matter was committed to the Sessions Court. During the course of trial, petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge. The respondent took two years for completion of investigation and statement of the petitioner was recorded after an year from the alleged incident. Moreover, the ingredients of Sections 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC were not made out and there were no material evidence on record and the prosecution case had serious lacuna. Despite the same, the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 18.3.2017 has dismissed the application for discharge filed by the petitioner and his son. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that the nature of work 5 of the petitioner's son included coordination with clients and companies and entering into agreements and contracts with the clients and companies. He also submitted that on 7.4.2011 petitioner's son, one Sri.Sathya.C.Muthu and one Sri.Ashok T entered into MoU for supply of BPO Voice. They mutually agreed that the said MoU is binding on them and any breach or failure to perform the contract by either party and to fulfill its obligations, such party will have to pay a penalty of Rs.30 lakhs. The parties have also agreed that they are governed by the terms of contract as mentioned in the MoU and their relationship is purely contractual in nature. Learned counsel further submitted that deceased consumed BP tablets and died and because of that reason, false complaint has been filed against the petitioner and others making allegation that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is submitted that complaint came to be filed by Sri.Chandrashekar arraying the present petitioner as accused No.5 and petitioner's son as accused No.1. Petitioner co-operated with the investigation agency and whatever information sought for 6 by the Investigating Officer has been furnished. Learned counsel further submitted that two complaints dated 11.6.2011 and 18.6.2011 have been filed. In the first complaint complainant has stated deceased told him that due to frustration and depression in life on account of financial ups and down he consumed 105 BP tablets at his friend's house and died as a consequence and the complainant asked the police not to lodge or register any case. On the basis of such complaint, the respondent registered UDR No.30/2011 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that statement of Elango and Ashok also shows that because of financial ups and downs the deceased got frustrated and depressed and he consumed the BP tablets. It is submitted that subsequently, the complainant has lodged another complaint on 18.6.2011 alleging that the deceased had left the death note which was found while searching the belongings of the deceased and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said document has been created for the purpose of false implication of the petitioner in the case. The contents of the said death note 7 shows that it is vague and bald and will not make out a case for the offence under Section 306 of IPC as against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel has submitted that though it was submitted before the learned Sessions Judge that no such offence has been committed and there is no material produced by the prosecution in support of its contention to make out a prima facie case, the application has been wrongly rejected. When there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have allowed the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the petitioner from the proceedings as otherwise he has to unnecessarily face the trial. Hence, he has submitted to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
1. P.VIJAYAN -VS- STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398
2. P.R.SUBRAMANIAN -VS- PERIAKARUPPAN AND OTHERS reported in 1993 (2) MWN (CRI) MAD
3. S.S.CHHEENA -VS- VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190 8
4. MADAN MOHAN SINGH -VS- STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628
5. NETAI DUTTA -VS- STATE OF W.B. reported in (2005) 2 SCC 659
6. SANJU ALIAS SANJAY SINGH SENGAR -VS-
STATE OF M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371
7. SWAMY PRAHALADDAS -VS- STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER reported in 1995 SUPP (3) SCC 438
8. UMESHA AND ANOTHER -VS- STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2015 KAR 153
9. DADU @ DADAPEER -VS- THE STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2013 SCC ONLINE KAR 5241
10. MANISH KUMAR SHARMA -VS- STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 1995 CRI LJ 3066
11. ARVIND AND OTHERS -VS- STATE OF CHHATTISGARH reported in 2014 SCC ONLINE CHH 12
12. PARAMJEETSINGH CHAWALA -VS- STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 2007 CRI LJ 3343
13. RAM NARESH -VS- STATE OF M.P. reported in 2002 (2)MPLJ 306
14. VEDPRAKASH TARACHAND BHAJJI -VS- STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 1995 MPLJ 458
5. Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition contending that on filing of the complaint by Sri.Chandrashekar, father of the deceased, the investigating officer after detailed 9 investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC. He submitted that perusing the charge sheet material there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and it cannot be said that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner along with others is abuse of process of Court. He has submitted that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked only if the materials on record will not make out a prima facie case and the case of the prosecution is groundless and clear abuse of process of Court. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has passed a detailed order assigning cogent reasons for the rejection of said application and no illegality has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge in coming to such conclusion. It is submitted that the decisions and the principles enunciated in the said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5 cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and accordingly, submitted to dismiss the petition.
10
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition and the documents produced along with the petition, order of the learned Sessions Judge impugned herein, decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner referred to above and the principles enunciated in the said decisions, so also, certified copy of the entire order sheet in Sessions Case No.177/2014.
7. Perusing the materials on record no doubt it is true that on the basis of the first complaint dated 11.6.2011 filed by Sri.Chandrashekar, UDR case was registered. But subsequently, the very complainant has filed another complaint dated 18.6.2011 stating that the deceased left the death note wherein he has mentioned about the harassment meted out to him by the petitioner and other accused persons , which was the reason for him to commit suicide.
8. I have perused the contents of the death note left by deceased Sathya.C.Muthu which states that, 'killing 11 himself due to blackmail and pressure from Nagesh, Ph:9916818389 for Rs.45 lakhs (45,00,000/-). I have not taken any money from anyone. Along with Nagesh, Sundar Ph: 9945528008 is also involved in this along with him Prashant is also involved in this. Adarsh's father, Adarsh and his father who is said to have taken the money is also involved in this, Sundar's father is also involved in this'.
In the next line by mentioning the names of six persons he has stated that he is killing himself due to pressure from the said persons. The name of the petitioner herein has been mentioned at Sl.No.5 of the said death note as Sunder's father.
9. The matter was investigated and charge sheet came to be filed for the offence under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution materials also shows that death note was referred to the handwriting expert and the handwriting expert has submitted the report stating that the said death note is in the handwriting of the deceased. I have also perused the statement of witnesses 12 recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Looking to the materials on record and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, I am of the opinion that it is a well reasoned order and no illegality has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge in passing the said order. Unless and until it is made out by the petitioner that the order of the learned Sessions Judge suffers from any legal infirmities and when after elaborate discussion it is held that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner, this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot quash the proceedings.
10. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The factual matrix and the circumstances involved in the said decisions will not come to the aid and assistance of the petitioner in this case. Further, the order sheet dated 27.4.2017 also shows that after the charges were prepared and read over to accused Nos.1 to 6, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the matter was posted to 13 01.06.2017 for trial. After 01.06.2017 till 10.7.2017 i.e., the date of filing of the petition before this Court, the petitioner has not mentioned in the petition as to what has happened in between.
11. Considering the entire materials on record, I am of the opinion that petitioner has not made out a case to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings initiated against him. Hence, petition being devoid of merits, is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp