Karnataka High Court
Sri Brahmananda Reddy vs The Sub Inspector on 7 January, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5064/2016
BETWEEN:
Sri Brahmananda Reddy
S/o Krishna Reddy
Aged about 37 years
Presently Residing at
Basaveswara Krupa
II Cross, Ashoka Nagar
Tumakuru District-572 101.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Jagadeesh V.N., Advocate)
AND:
1. The Sub-Inspector
New Extension Police Station
Thilak Park, Tumakuru Town
Tumakuru District-572 101.
2. The Police Inspector of Special Enquiries
S.C.I.D. Bengaluru,
Office of the Director General of Police
Carlton Building, Palace Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
3. Smt. B.Leelavathi
W/o H.K.Ashok
Aged about 43 years
-2-
9th Cross, Mallige Road
Ashok Nagar, Tumakuru Town
Tumakuru District-572 101.
...Respondents
(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1 & R2;
Sri B. Ravindra Prasad, Advocate for R3)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire Charge Sheet in
CR.No.149/2007 for the offence punishable under
Section 384 of IPC and Addl. Charge Sheet filed under
Section 448 r/w Sections 12 and 3 of Print and Books
Registration Act in C.C.No.159/2008 for the offences on
the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the charge sheet in Crime No.149/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC and additional charge sheet filed under Section 448 read with Section 12 and 3 of Print and Books Registration Act, 1867 in C.C. No.159/2008 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru.
-3-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has remained absent. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity, there is no representation. Since the criminal petition cannot be dismissed for default, the same is taken on merits.
3. I have heard the learned Additional SPP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 has remained absent. There is no representation.
4. Respondent No.3 filed the complaint alleging that she is a social worker. When she was in election campaign in the month of September - 2007 for Praja Samrajaya monthly magazine, the petitioner-accused No.1 printed and circulated an article with a heading as "Leela Jothege Bennigannana Leele" by which she was defamed. On 17.09.2017 at about 8.30 a.m., when she was sitting and discussing along with her known -4- persons, the editor of Prajasamrajay - petitioner/accused No.1 entered into her house and told that he wrote an article against her and she could read it and know the contents. The complainant seen the defaming article and questioned why he had written like that? if he writes in that way, her family would be spoiled and she would get defamed in society. Then, petitioner/accused No.1 said it is very small news and he would write in his future magazine very deliberatively and bring her image to streets. He further stated that if the complainant gave Rs.25,000/-, he would stop writing defaming article, she got frightened and informed that she does not have that much money and she was readily having Rs.5,000/- as she is in financial problem and she will give the balance soon and requested not to write any articles as against her in future. Thereafter, petitioner/accused No.1 took Rs.5,000/- and informed that he would come after some days and assured that he would not write anything -5- against her. Thereafter, she gave a complaint to the police to take necessary action. Based on the complaint, after investigation, the chare sheet was laid and subsequently, the police further investigated the case and filed the additional charge sheet as against the petitioner/accused No.1. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.
5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in his petition are that the petitioner is innocent of the offences leveled against him and already the charge sheet has been filed and also the additional charge sheet is politically motivated with oblique idea of plucking all loop wholes in the earlier charge sheet and getting the petitioner convicted. It is his further submission that the respondent- complainant has not prosecuted the case for defamation under Section 500 of IPC. When she had not prosecuted the case for defamation, the filing of case -6- under Section 384 of IPC is unwarranted. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly goes to show that only on political influence, respondent No.1 has registered the case. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer without considering the provisions of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has proceeded for further investigation at a belated stage. Without considering the law laid down by the Court, the trial Court has also upheld the further investigation conducted by the police. It is his further submission that the entire charge sheet and the additional charge sheet and re-trial of the case based on additional charge sheet are abuse of due process of law. Hence, the petitioner prays to allow the petition and quash the proceedings.
6. Per contra, learned Additional SPP vehemently argued and submitted that the further investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer is as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. As per -7- the said provision, further investigation is permissible but what has been prohibited is reinvestigation. But in the instant case, it is a further investigation not a reinvestigation. The trial Court after considering the factual matrix, it has come to the right conclusion and has rightly dismissed the application. It is his further submission that already the witnesses have been examined when the first charge sheet was filed. At that time, the petitioner has not challenged the charge sheet material. Under such circumstance, now at this juncture, it is not a fit case to quash the entire proceedings. It is his further submission that the investigating Agency is vested with vide power to investigate further in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records. -8-
8. Admittedly, the first charge sheet was filed and subsequently, the further investigation was conducted and thereafter, the final report has been submitted. On going through the Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., it empowers the police to conduct further investigation after filing of the report and the same has been recognized and also accepted by the catena of decisions of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi reported in AIR 2002 SC 441 that the Investing Agency is not precluded from further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of forwarding a report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 on a previous occasion. Wherein at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 it has been observed as under:
"11. Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention that once the proceedings initiated -9- under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report the police had no authority to register a second FIR and number it as FIR No. 208. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted to the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the court regarding the new discovery made by the police during investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceedings merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it.
- 10 -
12. Even otherwise, the investigating agency is not precluded from further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of forwarding a report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 on a previous occasion. This is clear from Section 173(8) of the Code."
When the said provisions of law envisaged the power to file an additional charge sheet, then under such circumstance, it cannot be held that there is an abuse of process of law.
9. Even as could be seen from the prayer, the petitioner/accused has prayed to quash the earlier charge sheet and the additional charge sheet, which has been filed subsequently. The records indicate that already some of the witnesses have been examined and cross-examined at that time, the additional charge sheet has been filed. When already the witnesses have been examined before the Court, under such circumstances, it cannot be held that there is no case as against the
- 11 -
petitioner/accused and there is an abuse of process of law.
10. On close reading of the charge sheet material, it indicates that there is prima-facie material as against the petitioner/accused in the alleged crime.
11. Taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that no good grounds have been made out so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The order of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE VBS