Karnataka High Court
Sri Munirathna vs State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2014
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.28165 OF 2014 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri.Munirathna,
S/o Sri.Subramani Naidu,
Age: 51 Years,
R/o No.147, 11th "A" Cross,
Vyalikaval,
BANGALORE - 560 003. ... PETITIONER.
(By Sri.Ravi B.Naik, Sr. Counsel for
Ms.Vijetha R.Naik, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Through Rajarajeshwari
Nagar Police,
Rept. by the High Court
Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. Sri.Ravi Kumar H,
S/o Not known to petitioner,
Aged about 47 Years,
MCC Flying Squad I Member,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar Division,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
BANGALORE - 560 098. ... RESPONDENTS.
(By Sri.Keshava Murthy,
Addl. SPP for R-1)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
2
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the Charge Sheet in
C.C.No.14107/2013 filed by the first respondent police for
offences punishable under Section 127 of the Representation
of Peoples Act read with Section 171(H) of IPC vide Annexure
- "C" and to quash the order of the learned III ACMM,
Bangalore, dated 03.09.2013 taking cognizance against the
petitioner and all further proceedings vide Annexure - "D".
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Accused No.1 in C.C.No.14107/2013 pending on the file of III ACMM Court, Bangalore, has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid criminal case, which is registered pursuant to a complaint registered in Crime No.117/2013 by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police for the offences punishable under Section 127 of the Representation of Peoples Act read with Section 171(H) of IPC. Admittedly the aforesaid complaint is filed by an officer of M.C.C. Flying Squad constituted by Election Commission during the period when the calendar of events for the Assembly Election of Karnataka for the year 2013, was in force.
3
2. The petitioner herein is said to be successful candidate from Rajarajeshwari Assembly Constituency of Bangalore District, Karnataka State. The complaint in Crime No.117/2013 indicating that the petitioner herein accompanied by more than 1750 - 2000 persons along with 37 vehicles of different model and make, visited the office of Election Commission on 17.04.2013 for the purpose of filing his nomination form. It is the case of the complainant while doing so, he breached certain provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act and as well as IPC, for which a complaint was filed by him before the jurisdictional police, which has resulted in a charge sheet being filed against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Section 127 of the Representation of Peoples Act read with Section 171(H) of IPC. The said charge sheet is still at the stage of issuance of summons to the accused and charges are not framed yet. It is not in dispute that before the charges are framed, petitioner would have an opportunity to address his arguments before the learned Magistrate to demonstrate that no grounds are made out in the charge sheet, which is 4 filed by the second respondent to punish him for the offences alleged in the charge sheet.
3. The present petitioner, who is first accused in C.C.No.14107/2013, has come up before this Court in haste seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.14107/2013. In support of his petition, he would rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2013) 10 SCC 591, which is in furtherance of earlier Judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd., and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in 1998 SCC (CRL.) 1400. In both the matters, it is held that the accused in a criminal proceedings, as a matter of right, can approach the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to seek quashing of the proceedings without even exhausting the remedy of seeking discharge before the learned Magistrate, where the criminal proceedings are pending and try to impress upon this Court, to follow the Judgment in letter and spirit by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in the matter of 5 Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another Vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95, wherein at paragraph No.7, it is held as under:
"7. ....... ..... ......... .......... ......... ......... ........... The rule of precedence, which is an integral part of our jurisprudence, mandates that this exposition of law must be followed and applied even by coordinate or co-equal Benches and certainly by all smaller Benches and subordinate Courts. We hasten to clarify that if a coordinate Bench considers the ratio decidendi of the previous Bench to be of doubtful efficacy, it must comply with the discipline of requesting the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench. Furthermore, there are some instances of decisions even of a Single Judge, which having withstood the onslaughts of time have metamorphosed into high authority demanding reverence and adherence because of its vintage and following in contradistinction of the strength of the Bench. ............... .......... ......... ....... .............. ............... .................."6
4. After hearing the learned senior counsel, Sri.Ravi B.Naik appearing for the petitioner and on going through the materials available on record, this Court find that nodoubt the aforesaid Judgment would give right to the accused in a criminal proceeding to seek quashing of the proceedings even before they exhaust their right to seek discharge before the learned Magistrate. Nevertheless the said Judgment does not say all the petitions filed should be mandatorily quashed by the High Court. The said Judgment discuss about the right of the accused to approach the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, but there is no direction to consider each and every one of them favouring to the petitioner. In fact the Criminal Petitions are heard at the exclusive discretion of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which it has to exercise considering the facts and circumstances of each case. In that view of the matter, while going through the materials available on record and considering the fact that the alleged offences is with reference to the practice to be followed by the candidate at the time of election in adhering 7 to the restrictions imposed by the Election Commission regarding number of persons to be engaged for the purpose of appearing before the Election Office for filing of nomination or in canvassing for their candidature during the period of their election and number of vehicles are the things which are required to be gone into, to consider prima facie there is an offence said to have committed by the candidate.
5. In the instant case, considering the allegation with reference to number of persons, who appeared before the Election Officer at the time of filing the nomination and the number of vehicles that is being used, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner herein, who is accused in C.C.No.14107/2013 is required to demonstrate before the learned Magistrate that the presence of large number of persons and usage of vehicles would not amount to violation of Section 127 of the Representation of Peoples Act read with Section 171(H) of IPC. This he can do only by producing necessary materials before the learned Magistrate, which this Court cannot consider for deciding the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, this Court 8 feel that the present petition is premature in stage and does not indicate that there is sufficient ground to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and others pending in C.C.No.14107/2013 on the file of III ACMM Court, Bangalore. Accordingly this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
AGV.