Karnataka High Court
H K Kavyashri @ Chaitra W/O. Lingaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP NO 109800 OF 2014 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN
H K KAVYASHRI @ CHAITRA W/O. LINGARAJ
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. NEAR NOORANI MOSQUE
S R NAGAR, HOSPET
DIST: BELLARY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADV.,)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE
2 . THE DEPUTY GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
OPP. MARTHAS HOSPITAL
BANGALORE
3 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY
2
4 . THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY
5 . THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
HOSPET TOWN POLICE STATION,
HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY
6 . THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
H AND B SQUAD, CID, OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE
7 . MAJJAGI NAGARAJ
S/O. MAJJAGI SHEKHAPPA
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: CONTRACTOR
R/O. HANUMANA HALLI VILLAGE
TQ:HOSPET
DIST: BELLARY
8 . K PARASHURAM
S/O. KURI ADIVEPPA
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O. HANUMANA HALLI VILLAGE
TQ:HOSPET
DIST: BELLARY
9 . MAJJAGI SHIVAPPA
S/O. MAJJAGI SHEKHAPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O. HANUMANA HALLI VILLAGE
TQ:HOSPET
DIST: BELLARY
10 . MAJJAGI ASHOK
S/O. MAJJAGI SHEKHAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: NIL
3
R/O. HANUMANA HALLI VILLAGE
TQ:HOSPET
DIST: BELLARY
11 . MAJJAGI RAVI
S/O. MAJJAGI SHEKHAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: NIL
R/O. HANUMANA HALLI VILLAGE
TQ:HOSPET
DIST: BELLARY
12 . BASAVARAJ
S/O. HANUMANTAPPA HONNAPPANAVAR
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: NIL
R/O. HANUMANA HALLI VILLAGE
TQ:HOSPET
DIST: BELLARY
13 . MAJJAGI SHEKHAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: NIL
R/O. HANUMANA HALLI VILLAGE
TQ:HOSPET
DIST: BELLARY
14 . MAJJAGI HANUMAKKA
W/O. MAJJAGI SHEKHAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. HANUMANA HALLI VILLAGE
TQ:HOSPET
DIST: BELLARY
15 . SHIVAKUMAR GOUDA
S/O. HOTEL VEERANNA GOUDA
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
4
R/O. HANUMANA HALLI VILLAGE
TQ:HOSPET
NOW AT RANAJIT PUR, TQ: SANDUR
DIST: BELLARY
16 . P BASAVARAJ
S/O. KENCHAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: TEACHER
R/O. ARASIKERE VILLAGE
TQ:HARAPANAHALLI,
DIST: DAVANAGERE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1-R6;
SRI.SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADV., FOR R7-16)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: I) QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 05.11.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL.SPECIAL JUDGE,
BELLARY IN SPL.CASE NO.125/2012 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E
WITH FURTHER DIRECTION TO RE-EXAMINE THE ENTIRE
CHARGE SHEET AND PROCEED WITH TRIAL.
II) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR RE-
INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE IN CRIME NO.85/2012 OF
HOSPET TOWN POLICE STATION OR IN ALTERNATE ISSUE A
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO HAND OVER THE
INVESTIGATION TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint alleging that on 5/5/2012 at about 2.30 p.m. accused Nos.1 and 3 went to the house of the informant and informed her that her brother met with an accident and he is sitting in the car near Laxmi talkies at Hosapete and thereafter she accompanied accused Nos.1 and 2 for seeing her brother. All these accused persons along with other accused persons forcibly took her in the car by closing her mouth and when the car went towards Raichur, the accused No.1 who was in love with the informant sent back her, and after returning to Hospete she lodged the complaint alleging that the accused No.1 at the instigation of the other accused persons forcibly took her and committed rape upon her. The police registered first information report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 365, 368, 344, 323, 504, 506, 376 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x),3 (i)(xi) of the prevention of SC/ST Act, 6 1989. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 497 and 498 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the prevention of SC/ST Act, 1989. Accused No.1 filed discharge application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the accused No.1 discharging him for the offences alleged against him in the charge sheet on the ground that the information lodged by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of Section 198(2) of Cr.P.C. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that though the allegations made in the complaint clearly discloses the commission of the offences under Sections 366, 365, 368, 344, 323, 504, 506, 376 R/w. 34 of IPC, the police deliberately without conducting the proper investigation has filed the charge sheet dropping the offences punishable under Sections 366, 365, 368, 344, 7 323, 504, 506, 376 R/w. 34 of IPC. Hence, he submits that the matter requires to be re-investigated by the investigating officer. He further submits that the complaint lodged by the petitioner is maintainable since there is no bar for the petitioner to lodge the complaint in respect of the offences which were dropped from the charge sheet. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge requires to be quashed.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 to 16 submits that the charge sheet filed against the Petitioners is not maintainable in view of the provision contained in Section 198(2) of IPC. Hence, he submits that learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the impugned order discharging the accused No.1 for the offences charged against him.
8
4. Learned HCGP would submit the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law and the same cannot be faulted with.
5. I have considered submission made by the learned counsel for parties.
6. Initially the first information report was registered against the accused No.1 along with the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 365, 368, 344, 323, 504, 506, 376 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x),3 (i)(xi) of the prevention of SC/ST Act, 1989.
7. However, the investigating officer, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet only as against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 497 and 498 of IPC on the ground that there are no materials so as to file charge-sheet against the accused for the offences which have been dropped from the charge- 9 sheet. Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C., specifies that "no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence" and Section 198(2) specifies that "no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under section 497 or section 498 of the said Code".
8. In the present case, the petitioner has not lodged the private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., and the first information was lodged by the petitioner alleging commission of offence by the accused under section 497 and 498 of IPC including other offences. However, the police, after investigation have filed charge- sheet for the offences punishable under sections 497 and 498 of IPC and dropped other offences on the ground that there are no materials to implicate the accused for the offences which have been dropped from the charge-sheet. 10 In view of clear bar contained under section 198 of Cr.P.C., taking cognizance of the offences punishable under section 497 and 498A of IPC against accused No.1 on the basis of a police report, is one without authority of law, since the aggrieved person as specified under Section 198(1) of Croc has not filed the complaint. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the application filed by accused No.1 under section 227 of Cr.P.C., and discharged him for the offences alleged against him. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
9. Insofar as the prayer for reinvestigation is concerned, the only allegation is that the petitioner was not subjected to medical examination by the investigating officer, which would otherwise have established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC. The petitioner having not challenged the charge-sheet or filed an application for reinvestigation under section 11 173(8) of Cr.P.C., before the learned Sessions Court at the earliest point of time, she cannot now maintain this petition seeking to issue direction to reinvestigate the matter, which would otherwise be a futile exercise in directing the investigating officer to conduct further investigation for subjecting the petitioner to medical examination. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vb/- upto para 6 Yan/- para 7 & 8