Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanasathyanageshwara vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6975 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARAYANASATHYANAGESHWARA
RAO BANDRE @ SRITHIRTH
S/O NARASINGHANARAYARAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO.38/A, SRI. KUTIRA
SUDURCHORADI ROAD
CHORADI, SHIMOGA. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY IT S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU.
2. DR.N.C.SIDDESHWARA
S/O N. CHANNABASAPPA
VETERINARY DOCTOR
KUMSI
SHIMOGA. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. GURURAJA S. SANGUR, ADV. FOR R2-ABSENT)
****
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R. IN CR.
NO.233/2012 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506,507,504 OF IPC
REGISTERED BY THE KUMSI P.S., SHIMOGA RURAL CIRCLE,
SHIMOGA DIST., DATED 29.08.2012.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for quashing the FIR dated 29.08.2012 in Crime No.233/2012 registered at Kumsi Police Station, Shivamogga Rural Circle, Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 507, 504 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant is absent. No representation.
3. The facts leading to this petition are that on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 Dr. N C Siddeshwara, Veterinary Doctor, Kumsi Veterinary Hospital the police have registered a case in Crime 3 No.233/2012 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 507, 504 of IPC. The allegations are that on 27.08.2012 afternoon at about 12.25 p.m. when the complainant was discharging his duty in Veterinary Hospital at Kumsi he received two messages to his mobile bearing No.9449923697 from the mobile No.9482813255. The said messages were as under:
1. Teach you a legal lesson and who will save you?
2. If you have guts face the legal battle."
4. In view of the said complaint a case was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 507, 504 of IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner is a resident of Kuteera village which is at the distance of 4 kms. from Kumsi Veterinary Hospital. He had requested the complainant Dr. Siddeshwara to come to his residence as his cow was not well. The complainant came to his house 4 and prescribed the medicines. Thereafter the complainant collected Rs.1,500/- from the petitioner on the pretext of getting the medicines, but he failed to provide the medicines. Inspite of several phone calls made, the complainant did not respond and also failed to provide further treatment to his cow, as a result of which the said cow succumbed to death. In this regard the petitioner had given complaint to the Commissioner, Veterinary Department, Bengaluru and the Deputy Director, Veterinary Department, Shivamogga on 27.08.2012.
Therefore, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner as a counter blast. The offences alleged in the complaint are non cognizable offences, but no permission is taken from the Magistrate for an investigation as required under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Thus, the initiation of criminal proceedings is not in accordance with law and the FIR is liable to be quashed. 5
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there is a clear proof that the petitioner has sent messages threatening the complainant. The said fact has not been denied by the petitioner. The petitioner having committed the wrongful acts, he is not entitled to for the reliefs claimed. There are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings.
7. In view of the rival contentions the only point for determination that arises for consideration is, " Whether the messages said to have been sent by the petitioner through his mobile No.9482813255 to the mobile of complainant bearing No.9449923697 indicate that the threat was given to the complainant to take away his life, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 506, 507, 504 of IPC ? "
The first contention is that the complainant who is the veterinary doctor failed to provide the medical treatment, the petitioner was constrained to file a 6 complaint before the Deputy Director, Veterinary Department, Shivamogga and Commissioner, Veterinary Department, Bengaluru. As a counter blast the petitioner filed a complaint with a vindictive motive to harass the petitioner and the messages sent through mobile do not make out a case of threat given by the petitioner to the complainant. The second contention is that the permission as required under Section 155(2) was not taken by the Investigating Officer.
8. So far as the second contention is concerned, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that no documents are forthcoming to confirm about the permission taken by the Investigating Officer from the Magistrate. Section 155(2) reads as under:
" No police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial."7
9. It is an admitted fact that the offences alleged are all non cognizable. Under these circumstances, the Investigating Officer is duty bound to take permission/order from the Magistrate before investigation. In the present case the investigation is not yet commenced in view of the stay granted in this criminal petition. As such, the second contention is not tenable.
10. So far as the first contention is concerned, the mobile messages said to have been sent by the petitioner to the complainant on the face of it do not constitute any offence and there is no specific wordings used to indicate that the petitioner has deliberately sent the messages with an intention to cause threat to take away the life of the complainant. It is the case of the petitioner that he had lost his cow because of dereliction of duty by the Veterinary Doctor, namely, the complainant and lack of medical treatment. Thus he had sent the messages in the rage of anger, but he had no intention whatsoever. 8
11. In a decision reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
" 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.9
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order 10 of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."11
In the present case even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at a face value and accepted in its entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. As such, there are valid grounds for quashing the FIR. Hence I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
FIR dated 29.08.2012 in Crime No.233/2012 registered at Kumsi Police Station, Shivamogga Rural Circle, Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 507, 504 of IPC is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl