Karnataka High Court
H B Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9710/2016
BETWEEN:
1. H.B.Manjunath
S/o Balakrishna Rao,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.69,
Sreegandhadakavalu,
Near Metro Layout,
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru-560091.
2. H.E.Yogesh Kumar
S/o Eshwarappa,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.10, 3rd Cross Road,
3rd Main Road, Goraguntepalya,
Bengaluru-560022.
3. Gagan
S/o Kailash chand,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.13, 1st Cross Road,
Kanteerava Nagara,
Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru-560096. ...Petitioners
(By Sri. B.O. Chandrashekar, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By Kamakshipalya Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru.
2. Bhavya
D/o S.Rajanna,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.144/1,
Sriganda Nagar,
Hegganahalli Cross,
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru-560091. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R1;
Sri. D.Nagaraja Reddy & Sri. Arun Kumar, Advocates
for R2 (NOC))
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 20.10.2016
passed in S.C.No.1369/2013 by 54th Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge, CCH-55 at Bengaluru and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Hearing, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Sri. B.O.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP for 1st respondent are present before the Court physically. 3 Smt. Vinitha for T.A.Karumbaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is present before the Court and submits that they have given NOC for 2nd respondent, consequently, Sri.D.Nagaraja Reddy and Sri. Arun Kumar, learned counsels represent for respondent Nos.2. However, learned counsel for 2nd respondent have not appeared either through video conferencing or by physical appearance.
2. Heard the arguments and perused the entire materials placed on record.
3. This petition is filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 who are arraigned as accused Nos. 2 to 4 in S.C.No.1369/2013 on the file of 54th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for quashing the order dated 20.10.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 read with 109 of IPC and for their discharge in the alleged offences. In this petition, the 1st accused by name Raghunandan is facing trial in the 4 court below for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and charge sheet has been laid against him in S.C.no.1369/2013. Subsequent to the committal of the said case to the court of 54th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the prosecution has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for direction to the investigating officer to submit additional charge sheet against the petitioners consequently laid additional charge sheet against Accused No.2 to Accused No.4 for offences punishable under Sections 109, 420 r/w 376 of IPC.
4. In S.C.No.1369/2013, it is transpired in the private complaint initiated by the complainant/2nd respondent before the Court of V-ACMM, Bangalore in PCR No.13382/2013. In the said complaint, one Raghunandan is arraigned as accused No.1 and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to
4. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No.1 had 5 sexual relationship with the 2nd respondent promising to marry her but he did not keep up his promise and fixed his marriage with some other girl. In the month of April, 2013, accused No.1 refused to marry 2nd respondent. Hence, 2nd respondent lodged a private complaint against him in PCR No.13382/2013.
5. Subsequent to the same, the learned V-ACMM referred the mater under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation to the Kamakshipalya Police. Consequently the case in Cr.No.458/2013 was registered against accused No.1 and these petitioners for the offence punishable under section 376 and 420 of IPC. After investigation, the jurisdictional police laid charge sheet only against accused No.1. Insofar as, accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, it is stated that, no offence is made out against them. Accordingly, these petitioners are dropped out. After filing the charge sheet against the accused No.1, C.C.No.14881/2013 was 6 registered and learned V-ACMM, Bangalore has committed this case as S.C.No.1369/2013 to the 54th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. In the meanwhile, prosecution has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking for further investigation against these petitioners in the said crime. The said application was allowed on 28.01.2015, directing the investigating officer to file additional charge sheet against the petitioners. Subsequently, on 09.12.2015, additional charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 420 and 376 of IPC. Consequently, the petitioners appeared before the Court and they are enlarged on bail. Insofar as, accused No.1 is concerned, charge has already been framed by the Sessions Court dated 17.07.2014 and charge against these petitioners is yet to be framed. When the case was posted for framing of charge against these petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are no 7 allegations made out in the complaint of victim girl and even in her statement recorded on 13.06.2013, she has specifically stated that these petitioners have not given any harassment to her. As such, there are no materials to frame charge against these petitioners. Hence, prayed for discharging them from the alleged offences.
6. On the other hand, the prosecution submitted that as per the further statement recorded on 04.06.2015, the victim girl has stated the petitioners being the friends of accused No.1, instigated him to not to marry her and they have also conspired to perform marriage of accused No.1 with some other girl and abused her in a filthy language, as such, these petitioners have actively participated in the alleged crime. Hence, the prosecution submitted that there are sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioners. After perusing the additional charge sheet and considering the further statement of victim girl, the 8 court below held that there are prima-facie material to frame charge against the accused Nos. 2 to 4, hence, they are not entitled for discharge from the alleged offences. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing the order dated 20.10.2016 in S.C.No.1369/2013 passed by trial court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument has taken me through the investigating materials consisting of statements of victim girl, her parents, her brothers and her sister-in- law recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., whereby they have clearly stated that petitioners have not given any torture to the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel submits that trial court has not properly appreciating the material on record placed by the investigating agency and the same does not disclose that there is ground for presuming that the petitioners have abetted commission of alleged offences. Apart from the 9 statement of victim girl before the police, she has requested to take action only against the accused No.1. He further submits that there is no material or sufficient ground to frame charge against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 read with Section 109 of IPC. The application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation was filed at a belated stage after framing of charge against the accused No.1 and after taking two adjournment to adduce the evidence of 2nd respondent. The material placed by the investigating agency after conducting further investigation does not disclose the commission of the offences for which charge is proposed to be framed against the petitioners. He further submits that the trial court ought to have discharged the petitioners from the case as when the victim girl and her parents, brother and her sister-in-law have consistently made a statement before the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioners have not troubled the victim girl in 10 any manner. Learned counsel further submits that if the said petition is not allowed, certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to allow the petition by quashing the order dated 20.10.2016 passed in S.C.No.1369/2013 by the 54th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
8. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the involvement of accused No.1 in respect of the crime and so also the scope of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Learned HCGP has contended that victim girl/respondent No.2 by name Smt. Bhavya R filed a private complaint in PCR No.13382/2013 before the V-ACMM, Bangalore. On 27.10.2014, victim girl was present before the trial court and prayed time for adducing evidence. On 20.12.2014, the learned public prosecutor filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., seeking for further investigation against these 11 petitioners. The said application was allowed directing the I.O. to conduct further investigation. Accordingly, additional charge was filed against these petitioners on 09.12.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376 and 109 of IPC. Learned HCGP further submitted that on 04.06.2015, further statement of victim girl was recorded and she has specifically stated in her statement that herself and accused No.1 were in love with each other and used to have sexual relationship in his house and in her house in the absence of housemates, as a result, she became pregnant and they used to roaming in shopping malls, Shimsha, Mysore and Thalakadu. Accused No.1 instructed victim girl to undergo abortion and gave tablets to her. Accused No.1 intended to marry another girl. When victim girl informed the same to these petitioners, they have not helped her rather they have instigated accused No.1 not to marry her and conspired to perform marriage of accused No.1 with some other 12 girl and abused her in filthy language and threatened her. As such, these petitioners have actively participated in the alleged crime and there are sufficient materials against these petitioners and petitioners require to face trial for the alleged crime. On all these grounds learned HCGP seeking for dismissal of the petition.
9. Having gone through the materials on record, it is relevant to refer Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
"(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in 13 relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2)."
10. In the instant case, during the course of trial against the accused No.1 in S.C.No.1369/2013, the prosecution has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking for further investigation against these petitioners in the said crime. The said application was allowed on 28.01.2015, directing the investigating officer to file additional charge sheet against these petitioners. Subsequently, on 09.12.2015, additional charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 420 and 376 of IPC. Insofar as, accused No.1 is concerned, charge has already been framed by the Sessions Court dated 17.07.2014 and charge against these petitioners is yet to be framed. The prosecution submitted that as per the further statement recorded on 04.06.2015, the victim girl has specifically stated that the petitioners 14 being the friends of accused No.1, instigated him not to marry her and they have also conspired to perform marriage of accused No.1 with some other girl and abused her in a filthy language, as such, these petitioners have actively participated in the alleged crime. Hence, prosecution submitted that there are materials to frame charge against the petitioners. After perusing the additional charge sheet and considering the further statement of victim girl, the court below held that there are prima-facie material to frame charge against the accused Nos. 2 to 4, hence, they are not entitled for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences. However, Section 170 of Cr.P.C., says that cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient.- If upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the office in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to 15 take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed. This is the object of Section 170 of Cr.P.C. But in the instant case, prosecution has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking for further investigation against these petitioners in S.C.No.1369/2013. The said application was allowed on 28.01.2015, directing the investigating officer to file additional charge sheet against these petitioners. Subsequently, on 09.12.2015, additional charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 420 and 376 of IPC. Insofar as, accused No.1 is concerned, charge has already been framed by the Sessions Court 16 dated 17.07.2014 and charge against these petitioners is yet to be framed.
11. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot arise in detail to distinguish the facts or otherwise to consider the material evidence which were collected by the I.O. But it is a domain vested with the prosecution to facilitate worthwhile evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it requires for refraining from dwelling in detail of the materials collected by the I.O. Hence, the petitioners requires to face trial as opined and said that there is no substance in the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for intervention and there is no warranting circumstances for intervention of this Court to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 20.10.2016 in S.C.No.1369/2013 by the 54th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Hence, the petition is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition 17 is dismissed by confirming the order passed in S.C.No.1369/2013 by the 54th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
12. It is made it clear whatever the observation made in the order; the same shall not influence the mind of Court below in S.C.No.1369/2013 in respect of accused No.1 and later on accused Nos. 2 to 4. The Court below has to proceed with the case in accordance with law and to dispose of the case on merits expeditiously since, case is of the year 2013. All contentions shall be kept open for the prosecution and the defence counsel.. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS/-