Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.R.Srinivasa vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2013
Equivalent citations: 2013 (3) AKR 244
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2528 OF 2009
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5986 OF 2006
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4131 OF 2006
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4138 OF 2006
IN CRL.P.No.2528 of 2009
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. K.R. Srinivasa,
Son of Late Rama Sanjeevaiah,
Aged 46 years,
Production Assistant,
Doordarshan Kendra,
Gulbarga - 585 104.
Residing at:
B-7, Doordarshan Quarters,
Humnabad Road,
Gulbarga 585 104.
2
2. Sri. N.K. Mohan Ram,
Son of Late N. Krishna Iyengar,
Deputy Director,
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 006.
Residing at: GF-8,
Atria Villa,
Palace Guttahalli Main Road,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 003. ...PETITIONERS
(By M/s. Tomy Sebastian, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By J.C.Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore City.
2. Sri. Mahesh Joshi,
Son of Late H.G. Joshi,
Director,
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 006. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.M. Nawaz, Additional State Public Prosecutor, for
Respondent No.1
Shri. C.V.Sudhindra, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated
26.5.2006 passed in C.C.No.13961/2006 on the file of the Chief
3
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, taking cognizance of
the offences under Section 469, 471 and 120(B) against the
petitioners and ordering the registration of cases against the
petitioners for offences under sections 469, 471 and 120(B) IPC
and issuing proceeds for appearance and also quash all further
proceedings culminated there from in the said case.
IN CRL.P.No.5986 of 2006
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. N. Raghavan,
Son of Late N.T. Venkatachari,
Aged about 56 years,
The Director,
Doordarshan Kendra,
Thrissur,
Kerala - State.
2. Smt. N.V. Vijayalakshmi,
Wife of M.V. Sethumadava,
Aged about 48 years,
Programme Officer,
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C. Kendra,
Bangalore - 560 006.
Presently working as
Assistant Director,
Gulbarga.
3. Smt. Sudha S. Rao,
Wife of Shankar Rao,
Aged about 55 years,
Programme Executive,
Doordarshan Kendra,
4
J.C.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 006.
Now she is retired and
Residing at No.532/1,
42nd Cross, 8th Block,
Jayanagara,
Bangalore - 560 070.
4. Smt. H. Sulochana,
Wife of C.S. Hullahalli,
Aged about 48 years,
Programme Executive,
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 006.
Now working at
All India Radio,
Rajbhavan Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
5. Smt. Jayashree Narain,
Wife of B.N. Sathyanarayana,
Aged about 53 years,
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 006.
Now working at
All India Radio,
Rajbhavan Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. C.M. Kempe Gowda, Advocate)
5
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By J.C.Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore,
By State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building Complex,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Sri. Mahesh Joshi IB (P) S,
Director (Marketing),
All India Radio and Doordarshan,
Rajbhavan Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri.P.M. Nawaz, Additional State Public Prosecutor for
Respondent No.1
Shri. C.V. Sudhindra, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.13961/2006 on the file of the VIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
IN CRL.P. 4131 of 2006
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. K.R. Srinivasa,
Son of Sri. Rama Sanjeevaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Production Assistant
Dooradarshan Kendra,
Gulbarga ,
6
Residing at Dooradarshan Quarters,
Humanabad Road,
Gulbarga.
2. Sri. A. Dasa,
Son of late Linga,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at: No.85,
4th Cross, Manjunatha Layout,
R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore.
3. Sri. C.N. Krishnamachar,
Son of Late Narasimhachar,
Residing at 28/3,
2nd Cross, 3rd Main,
3rd Block, B.S.K.,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. K. Diwakara, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by
J.C.Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore.
2. Sri. Mahesh Joshi IB (P) S,
Director (Marketing),
All India Radio and Doordarshan,
Rajbhavan Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri.P.M. Nawaz, Additional State Public Prosecutor for
Respondent No.1
Shri. C.V. Sudhindra, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
7
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.13961/2006 on the file of the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
IN CRL.P.No.4138 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
N.K. Mohanram,
Son of Late N. Krishna Iyengar,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at GF-8, Atria Villa,
Palace Guttahalli Main Road,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. H.N. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by
J.C.Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore.
2. Sri. Mahesh Joshi,
Son of H.G. Joshi,
Director ,
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C. Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 006. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri.P.M. Nawaz, Additional State Public Prosecutor for
Respondent No.1
Shri. C.V. Sudhindra, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
8
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire
proceedings including the FIR in C.C.No.13961/2006 on the
file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
These petitions having been heard and reserved on
28.03.2013 and coming on for pronouncement of orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:-
ORDER
These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the petitioners are all accused of offences punishable under Sections 415,419,464,468,469,471 and 474 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) in case No. CC 13961/2006, before the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
2. The facts of the case are as follows :-
The petitioners were all employees of Prasara Bharathi. Some of them have attained the age of superannuation and have retired. However, while all of them were posted at Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, they were all said to be the 9 members of the Programme Staff Association (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PSA', for brevity), a body consisting of Doordarshan Kendra (Hereinafter referred to as the 'DDK', for brevity)and All India Radio (Hereinafter referred to as the 'AIR', for brevity) employees, of which petitioner no.1 in Criminal Petition No.4131/2006 was said to be the Unit Secretary.
It transpires that during the year 1998-1999, the complainant - Mahesh Joshi was then the Director - Marketing, AIR and DDK, Bangalore. According to his complaint, several employees, including the petitioners, had published false and defamatory statements after passing a resolution at a meeting of the PSA, held at DDK, Bangalore in April 1999. It was alleged that the decision was endorsed and signed by all the accused, who were cited in the First Information Report and the complainant had filed a private complaint numbered as PCR 364/1999, for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 10 Bangalore. After the Magistrate took cognizance, the case was numbered as CC 185/2000. During the course of the trial, several of the accused persons compounded the offence with the complainant by tendering apology by way of affidavits insofar as the accusations were concerned and the complainant had withdrawn the complaint insofar as those accused persons were concerned. But the petitioners in these petitions, numbering 9, had contested the case and the Magistrate, by his judgment dated 5.7.2005, had acquitted the accused. It was during the pendency of that case, that the complainant filed the present case registered as Crime No.191/2004 on 30.9.2004.
The Police, having filed a charge-sheet against these petitioners, the petitioners are before this court.
3. It is contended that when the petitioners have been acquitted of the offences in the first instance, the present complaint, which is an offshoot of the earlier complaint, is brought mala fide and only in order to cause harassment and 11 hardship to the petitioners. The proceedings would have to be quashed as it would certainly amount to the petitioners suffering a double jeopardy. It is pointed out that the present complaint is nothing but a continuation of the earlier complaint, which is opposed to the established principles of law and would militate against justice and fair play.
It is well-settled that the criminal law being set in motion and the motive if tainted with mala fides and is instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance against the petitioners, to appease a private and personal grudge through the medium of the Court, it is gross abuse of process and therefore, requires to be quashed.
The very complainant having brought an earlier case that has been decided on merits and an appeal filed against the acquittal of the present petitioners in Criminal Appeal No.1388/2005, the same was also dismissed by a judgment dated 5.7.2011. It is pointed out that according to the 12 complainant, the president of the PSA had filed an affidavit in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, along with his sworn statement stating that the letter, which was issued by the first petitioner in Crl.P.4131/2006, K.R.Srinivas, the Secretary of the local unit of PSA, on the letter head of PSA, was unauthorized and an unofficial one and he had further stated that at the relevant period of time, there was no legally constituted unit of PSA at DDK, Bangalore. He has further stated that neither K.R.Srinivas was the Secretary nor a Member of the said association during 1999. He had also stated that the letterhead of PSA has been fabricated and all the 26 members of the PSA, who had signed the minutes even as members of the PSA, were not at all the members of the PSA, duly recognized by the Central body and that the said President had also filed a criminal petition in Crl.P 39/2004 before this court and in the said petition, he had again stated that at the relevant point of time, the PSA had no longer a unit of DDK, Bangalore and the accused were never its members and he had 13 also stated that the letterhead that the accused had used was a forged and fabricated one. But, he had withdrawn that petition as on 3.6.2004. Hence, it was alleged that the named persons in the complaint numbering 25, were not members of the PSA, had entered into criminal conspiracy and falsely claimed to be the members of the PSA and held a false proceedings in the name of PSA at its local unit at DDK, Bangalore and passed a false resolution, calculated to make it appear as genuine and enclosed the same along with a false representation to the higher authorities of the Prasara Bharathi to damage the career of the complainant as well as his reputation and integrity and had used the false and forged documents as genuine and forwarded the same to the higher authorities in Doordarshan intending to cause harm and injury to the complainant. The direct effect of which was that the complainant was immediately transferred to another station. It is on the basis of that complaint that the proceedings had been initiated and therefore, it is pointed out that the findings in the earlier 14 complaint clearly did not enable the complainant to file the present complaint, on the basis of the material that was negated by the very court, as not having been proved.
It is pointed out that the earlier proceedings required the court to consider whether the accused, namely, the petitioners herein had, in pursuance of their common intention, to malign the reputation of the complainant and in order to lower the image of the complainant in the estimation and in the eyes of the public, had prepared a note containing defamatory statements against the complainant and had circulated the letter amongst various authorities and had also got it published in an informative weekly and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In this regard, the trial court had addressed Exhibit P.1, which was the alleged document containing the defamatory remarks.
The court below has categorically held that taking into account the entire evidence produced, it was not established that the petitioners herein had committed any offence, as it was not 15 at all proved that Exhibit P.1 had been published to the knowledge of any third-parties. It is contended that on the basis of the alleged statement made by the president, PSA to the effect that Exhibit P.1 was a forged document and that the petitioners were not members of the PSA and that therefore the petitioners had committed an offence punishable under Section 469 of the IPC would not be tenable, for the reason that Exhibit- P.1, which has not been proved at all, in the earlier proceedings. Secondly, the stand of the complainant is inconsistent in having accepted the apology of the other accused, all of whom were arraigned as the accused, on the footing that they were all members of the said association along with the petitioners. Such an inconsistent stand would demonstrate that the complainant only seeks to pursue the criminal proceedings with mala fide intentions and therefore, the learned Counsel seeks that the proceedings be quashed. 16
4. While the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant - respondent vehemently seeks to justify the institution of the proceedings, as the cause of action for the earlier proceedings is entirely different from the cause of action for the present proceedings.
It is on the complainant becoming aware that not only was the publication of Exhibit P.1 in the earlier case, grossly defamatory, but had been forged and falsely presented, as coming from an association of which the petitioners were not members nor office-bearers, the same is established on the face of it. The petitioners seeking to contend otherwise, are at best, claiming the defence available to them, which they are entitled to set up at the trial. On the principle that if the allegations in the complaint supported by material on record is left uncontroverted, it will certainly result in the conviction of the petitioners and it is on that guideline that the proceedings would require to run their course and there is no warrant to prematurely quash the proceedings, even before the complaint 17 is tested at the trial. It is in this vein that the learned counsel would seek to justify the pending proceedings before the trial court.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, it is not in dispute that the acquittal of the petitioners in the earlier proceedings has attained finality. A significant finding by this court insofar as Exhibit P.1, which was a copy of the alleged document containing the defamatory statements, as exhibited in the earlier proceedings, is to the following effect:-
"9. It is from the above evidence of the complainant, the learned Magistrate has held that the accused has not proved that Ex.P.1 was issued by the accused nor he has proved that Ex.P.1 was signed by any of the accused and therefore, acquitted the accused.
10. On a careful consideration of the entire materials on record, it is seen that at the very out set the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that Ex.P.1 was produced before him by any person much less the accused and also the writing and signature found in Ex.P.1 is not proved to belong to any of the accused. There was a signature found in Ex.P.1, which according to the 18 complainant belongs to one of the accused. Nothing prevented the complainant from sending the said document to the hand writing expert and from getting it compared with the signatures of the accused so as to fix the liability on the accused."
Therefore, when the primary document, on which the complainant rested his case, has been negated, it would be futile to attribute the said document to the petitioners herein, in further alleging that they had forged the said document and had falsely claimed to be the secretary, PSA, and that they were members of the PSA etc., which is wholly irrelevant, as the grievance of the complainant was regards the injury that he had sustained by virtue of the defamatory statements contained in that document. Therefore, when the primary grievance of the complainant and the basic act attributed to the petitioners has not been proved, it is no longer tenable for the court to examine a peripheral issue, whether the petitioners had committed forgery of that very document and had falsely claimed to be the members of the association etc. Therefore, the only 19 presumption that could be drawn is that the complainant has brought the proceedings with a view to wreak vengeance against the petitioners. Though the court having taken cognizance in the first instance, was on account of the fact that the earlier proceedings had not culminated in a judgment and there were no findings as regards the proof of Exhibit P.1. But however, with the findings having been arrived at categorically, as to the complainant not having proved the basic document, on which his entire case was based, no purpose is served in reexamining the same, albeit with a different purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioners were involved in forging the document and whether or not they were really the members of any employees' association. The complainant, in any event, is not an office bearer of the association, who is aggrieved by any such forgery or impersonation. That is the other aspect, which would also render the further proceedings ineffectual. 20
Hence, for all these reasons, the petitions are allowed. The proceedings on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.13961/2006 are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv